Kathleen F.

Cruz

KAREN E. SALVACION, minor, thru Federico N. Salvacion, Jr., father and Natural Guardian, and
Spouses FEDERICO N. SALVACION, JR., and EVELINA E. SALVACION , petitioners, vs . CENTRAL BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION and GREG BARTELLI y NORTHCOTT, respondents.
G.R. No. 94723
August 21, 1997

Doctrine: Instant petition for declaratory relief can only be entertained and treated as a petition for
mandamus to require respondents to honor and comply with the writ of execution. The Supreme Court
has no original and exclusive jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief. However, exceptions to
this rule have been recognized. Thus, where the petition has far-reaching implications and raises
questions that should be resolved, it may be treated as one for mandamus.

Facts: Greg Bartelli, an American tourist, coaxed and lured petitioner Karen Salvacion, then 12 years old
to go with him to his apartment. Therein, Greg detained Karen for four days and raped her several
times. After policemen and people living nearby rescued Karen, Greg was arrested and detained at the
Makati Municipal Jail. A case for Serious Illegal Detention and four counts of rape charges were filed
against Greg Bartelli. A Civil Case for damages with preliminary attachment was also filed against him.
On the scheduled day of hearing for Bartelli's petition for bail the latter escaped from jail, thereby
causing all criminal cases led against him to be archived pending his arrest. Meanwhile, the issuance of
the writ of preliminary attachment was granted for the petitioners and the writ was issued. However,
China Banking Corporation failed to honor Notice of Garnishment served by the Deputy Sheriff of
Makati. China Banking Corporation invoked Section 113 of the Central Bank Circular No. 960 to the
effect that the dollar deposits of defendant Greg Bartelli are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or
any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body
whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the trial court granted petitioner's motion for leave to serve summons by publication in the
civil case. Summons was published. Bartelli failed to file his answer to the complaint and was declared in
default. After hearing ex-parte, the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner. Pursuant to an Order
granting leave to publish notice of decision, said notice was published in the Manila Bulletin. After the
lapse of Fifteen (15) days from the date of the last publication of the notice of judgment and the
decision of the trial court had become final, petitioners tried to execute on Bartelli's dollar deposit with
China Banking Corporation. Likewise, the bank invoked Section 113 of the Central Bank Circular No. 960.

Thus, petitioner seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over a petition for
declaratory relief.

Ruling: No. According to the Supreme Court, petitioner deserved the damages awarded to her by the
court. This Court has no original and exclusive jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief; however,
exceptions to the rule have been recognized. Thus, where the petition has far-reaching implications and
raises questions that should be resolved, it may be treated as one for mandamus.

The application of the law depends on the extent of its justice. Eventually, if the Court rule that the
questioned Section 113 of the Central Bank Circular No. 960 which exempt from attachment,
garnishment, or an order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any
administrative body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result especially to a
citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Bartelli. This would negate Article 10 of the New Civil
Code, which provides that "in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed
that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. The provisions of Section 113 of CB
Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246 insofar as it amends Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426 were held to be
inapplicable to the case because of its peculiar circumstances. Respondents were required to comply
with the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 89-3214 and to release to the petitioners the dollar
deposits of Greg Bartelli in such amount as would satisfy the judgment.