DR. ERNESTO A. BELEN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DR. CONRADO M. DE LEON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The issue to be determined in this appeal is whether an electric floor, fan
used by appellant—a dentist by profession—in his clinic is exempt from
execution. The final judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 28436 of the Court of
First Instance of Manila against Dr. Conrado M. de Leon and in favor of Dr.
Ernesto A. Belen having become executory, the latter filed the corresponding
motion for execution. On August 14, 1959, the writ of execution was issued and
on the following day, pursuant thereto, the sheriff levied upon the following
properties of the judgment debtor: one (1) Japanese dental unit equipment,
including chair, and one (1) Westinghouse electric floor fan, and advertised
them for sale at public auction on August 25 of the same year to satisfy the
aforesaid judgment in the sum of P1,360.10, with interests.

Before the date of the sale, the judgment debtor filed an urgent motion
praying that the above-mentioned articles be declared exempt from execution on
the ground that they constitute implements or equipment necessarily used by him
in the practice of his profession as a dentist.

Resolving the same on September 25, 1959, the court declared the dental
equipment, including chair, exempt, but not the electric floor fan. Hence the
present appeal.

Under the provisions of paragraph b, Section 12, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court, “tools and implements necessarily used by the judgment debtor in his
trade or employment” are exempt from execution.

The term “implement” (from the latin word “implementum”) generally means: to
fill up or to complete. Its meaning includes an “article, as of aparel or
furniture, serving to equip” (Webster, International Dictionary).

The weight of authority is for the liberal construction of statutes or rules
providing for exemption from execution in order to give effect to their
beneficent and humane purpose. To this end any reasonable doubt should be
resolved in favor of exemption.

To the above we may add that judicial notice may be taken of the fact that
most dental clinics are not spacious nor air-conditioned; that the work to be
done by the dentist is of a delicate nature, while the lot of the patient is not
exactly what may be called pleasant and desirable.

In view of the foregoing considerations, we believe that a humane
construction of the provision under consideration justifies the conclusion that
the electric floor fan in question is an implement necessarily used by appellant
in the practice of his profession and should be deemed exempt from
execution.

Wherefore, the decision below is modified in the sense of including the
electric floor fan in question among the articles belonging to appellant exempt
from execution. Without costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.