Commercial Law, 2017 Bar — Question III-A

ESSAY

Data Realty, Inc. (DRI) was engaged in realty development. The family of Matteo owned 100% of the capital stock of DRI. Matteo was also the President and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Other members of Matteo's family held the major positions in DRI. Because of a nasty takeover fight with D&E Realty Co., Inc. (D&E), another realty developer, for the control of a smaller realty company with vast landholdings, DRI and D&E engaged in an expensive litigation that eventually led to a money judgment being rendered in favor of D&E. Meantime, DRI, facing inability to pay its liabilities as they fall due but still holding substantial assets, filed a petition for voluntary rehabilitation. Trying to beat the consequences of rehabilitation proceedings, D&E moved in the trial court for the issuance of a writ of execution. The trial court also happened to be the rehabilitation court. The writ of execution was issued. Serving the writ of execution, Merto, the court sheriff who had just passed his Credit Transactions subject in law school, garnished Matteo's bank accounts, and levied his real properties, including his house and lot in Makati. Are the garnishment and levy of Matteo's assets lawful and proper? Explain your answer.

You can write freely without an account. Sign in to reveal the suggested answer and track your progress.