The level of alarm caused by the abuse of garnishee orders is now indisputable (Fernández, 2018). The precedent of the judge of the summary proceedings declaring lawyers who abusively activate legal channels as reckless litigants has also been reiterated, such as, for example, filing a new attachment one day before the date on which the judge indicates that an order will be read regarding the attachment previously filed (Judgment 504-2023-SORD-2155, of the Presidency of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the National District). The incidents that arise from these actions often merit special details and particularities when requesting the judge to lift them in accordance with the provisions of articles 101 et seq. of Law 834-1978.
These garnishee orders also demonstrate abuses in the face of a multiplicity of attachments, in such a way that they frequently impact the garnished party’s assets above the amounts owed, thereby violating important principles of due process. In practice, this can create difficulties when lifting them, despite the judge’s order.
For this, I propose a practical example, when the bailiff executes an act to a large number of garnished third parties, such that one day is not enough to notify. So, if the bailiff started his act number 88 on July 6 in bank “a”, and then in “b”. But as he does not have time to conclude all his transfers, he notifies that same act 88 to bank “c”, on July 7.
We then find ourselves with the same act number 88 dated July 6 for banks “a” and “b”, and in turn the same act number 88 dated July 7 for bank “c”. This situation is perfectly verifiable in the full act of the bailiff and the attaching creditor, and when the garnished party is notified of the act in its entirety, where the bailiff indicates in a note that it is an act that began on the 6th and concluded on July 7.
However, as urgency characterizes any action aimed at lifting an attachment through summary proceedings, the defendant does not have the full act, because only one of the banks, at his request, has sent the receipt; and consequently, he only has a fraction of the garnishee order, nor is the attaching creditor interested in depositing the full act.
But when the judge orders banks “a”, “b” and “c” to lift the attachment by means of an order, he only mentions act 88 dated July 6. Then bank “c” says that it is not the same attachment act, because its attachment act indicates that it is number 88 dated July 7.
This implies that it is necessary to request the judge of the summary proceedings to indicate by means of a resolution that it is the same act. But for this we need the full act that was never contributed to the debates, which would in turn imply requesting again, through adversarial proceedings, that the lifting of that act be ordered.
For this reason, it is very important that the following measures be adopted during the hearing of the claim in summary proceedings: i) Request the court to order the full deposit of the garnishee order; and ii) when requesting the lifting of the garnishee order, indicate that it is an act initiated on one date and concluded on another date, if applicable.
Bibliography
Fernández, J. M. S. (2018, febrero 22). El abuso de los embargos. Periódico elDinero. https://eldinero.com.do/55421/el-abuso-de-los-embargos/
Presidency of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the National District. (2023). Judgment no. 504-2023-SORD-2155. Dominican Republic: Judicial Branch.
