ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-7541   April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL. <br /><br />096 Phil 878

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-7541. April 29, 1955.]

    VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ISAAC LACSON, CARMEN P. DE LACSON, The HONORABLE JUDGE EMILIO RILLORAZA AND THE SHERIFF OF PASAY CITY, Respondents.

    Jose V. Lesaca and Enrico I. de la Cruz for Petitioner.

    Castillo Buenavides & Lectura for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; INJUNCTION; JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE DAMAGES AGAINST SURETY; WHEN INJURED PARTY MAY ASK TO PROVE SUCH DAMAGES. — If the judgment dissolving a writ of preliminary injunction contains no pronouncement against the surety for damages caused by the issuance of such writ, the defendant or the injured party, may ask for (and be given) opportunity to prove damages against the surety, provided such surety is notified and the decision has not yet become final. As the claim for damages against the surety was made for the first time three months after the judgment had become final, the judgment is no longer susceptible to any amendment allowing damages against such surety.

    2. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; WHEN CERTIORARI WILL BE ENTERTAINED NOTWITHSTANDING REMEDY BY APPEAL. — Although the general rule is that certiorari will not be entertained where there is a remedy by appeal, exceptions have heretofore been made in several instances wherein the lower court acted without jurisdiction. (Moran’s Rules of Court, 1952 Ed. Vol. 2 p. 168.) .


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    In Civil Case No. 1313-P of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation (Visayan Surety for short) was ordered to pay respondents Isaac Lacson and Carmen P. de Lacson damages by reason of the issuance of a preliminary injunction therein.

    Asserting abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction, it instituted these proceedings to annul such order.

    The record shows that in the above lawsuit entitled Dy Kho v. Isaac Lacson Et. Al., the respondent judge granted the petition for preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond for the amount P1,500 in the usual form, signed by Dy Kho as principal, and the Visayan Surety as surety.

    After due hearing however, and on November 8, 1952, the case was dismissed and the injunction dissolved by an order the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, the writ of certiorari applied for is hereby denied, and the preliminary injunction previously granted in the present case is hereby dissolved, and the above-entitled case is hereby ordered dismissed, with costs against the petitioner."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Copy of this order was received by the Lacsons on November 10, 1952. On November 12, 1952, they filed a motion to set a date for presentation of evidence of damages they suffered thru the injunction; yet no copy of their pleading was served upon the surety. And on November 21, 1952 it was denied for being insufficient "in form and in substance."

    Again on February 23, 1953 the Lacsons prayed for a date to present their "evidence for damages suffered . . . as a result of the filing of the above entitled civil case which is not only frivolous but just to delay matters." And on March 10, 1953, supplementing their petition, they likewise prayed for assessment of the damages they had suffered by reason of the issuance of the injunction. Copies of their petitions were served on Dy Kho and the Visayan Surety. Pursuant thereto, the respondent judge heard the evidence, and in his order of November 28, 1953, awarded to the Lacsons damages in the sum of P26,750 payable by Dy Kho, and also damages of P1,500 chargeable to the bond subscribed by the Visayan Surety. Notified of the order, the latter filed a motion to reconsider calling attention to the circumstance that the original decision, awarding no damages against the surety, had become final before the respondents asked for its modification by their motions of February and March 1953. His Honor declined to change his stand.

    Whereupon this petition for certiorari with prohibition and injunction was filed here on March 6, 1954. It was given due course; the respondents answered; and the controversy was subsequently submitted for decision upon memoranda prepared by both sides.

    The issues raised by the pleadings have heretofore been discussed in decisions of this Court on the subject, applying section 9, Rule 60, and section 20, Rule 59.

    "A claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a preliminary injunction must be presented in the principal action, and judgment therefor must be included in the final judgment of the case. The remedy is exclusive and by failing to file a motion for the determination of the damages on time and while the judgment is still under the control of the court, the claimant loses his right to such damages." (Moran Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 Ed. Vol. 2 p. 81, citing Casimiro Japco v. Moir, 36 Phil., 350; Somes v. Crossfield, 9 Phil., 13; Macatangay v. Municipality of San Juan de Bocboc, 9 Phil., 19.)

    "In other words, the claim for damages may me made in the discretion of the Court at any time before the judgment rendered had become final and executory. If the prevailing party fails to file his claim for damages, the bond filed to answer therefor shall upon proper petition be withdrawn." (Moran op. cit. Vol. 2 p. 54, citing Facundo v. Tan, L-2767, Dec. 29, 1949, 47 Off. Gaz., 2912; Brodett Et. Al. v. De la Rosa Et. Al., 44 Off. Gaz., 872; Lardizabal v. Judge Felix, 44 Off Gaz., 63.)

    "A claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a preliminary injunction must be presented in the principal action, and judgment therefore must be included in the final judgment of the case. The remedy is exclusive and by failing to file a motion for the determination of the damages in time and while the judgment is still under the control of the court, the claimant loses his right to such damages. Somes v. Crossfield, 9 Phil., 13; 9 P. R. A. 7; Macatangay v. Municipality of San Juan de Bocboc, 9 Phil., 19; 9 P. R. A. 10; Santos v. Moir, 36 Phil., 350; Japco v. City of Manila, 48 Phil., 851." (Francisco, Annotated Rules of Court [1940] Vol. 2 p. 127.) .

    From the above it may be gathered that if the judgment dissolving a writ of preliminary injunction contains no pronouncement against the surety for damages caused by the issuance of such writ, the defendant or the injured party, may ask for (and be given) opportunity to prove damages against the surety, provided such surety is notified and the decision has not yet become final.

    The record shows that on November 10, 1952, the respondent spouses (defendants in the action) received notice of the order of November 8, 1952 and the plaintiff received his on or before November 15, 1952 (Annex G). The order of dismissal, therefore, became final and executory on or before December 15, 1952. No valid appeal was perfected during that time; and no legal steps had been taken to check the running of the period to prosecute an appeal.

    Consequently, when on March 10, 1953 1 a motion for the first time asked for damages against the surety, with notice to the same, the judgment had already become final for three months — i.e., not susceptible to any amendment allowing damages against such surety. In this connection, the respondents allege that on November 12, 1952, before the judgment had become final, they requested for damages against the surety. But inasmuch as no copy was served on the surety, the motion was a useless piece of paper; 2 and no claim of interruption of the period could be based on it, specially because they interposed no appeal from its denial.

    Indeed it is markworthy that when the Visayan Surety moved for reconsideration in the lower court alleging want of jurisdiction because the judgment had become final, the respondents in their opposition (Annex N) never mentioned their said useless motion of November 12. They merely pointed out to the court that although the surety had been notified of their petition of March 10, 1953, it made "no opposition verbal or in writing." They repeat the same line of argument here, insisting that, not having contested their motion, petitioner "is guilty of laches and is now under estopped." To this proposition the Visayan Surety replies that it offered no opposition because it "did not like to dispute any matter before a court that had no jurisdiction." It could have added another reason: it assumed or had the right to assume that the court: would realize it had already lost jurisdiction — the judgment having become final and executory. Anyway, mere silence on the part of one party could not confer on the lower court the jurisdiction, that it had already lost, to amend its judgment.

    The petitioner has aptly invoked the following precedents:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Before final judgment in the main action, the party suffering from the execution of the injunction order should file with the court trying that action his application for damages resulting from the execution of the injunction order, with due notice to the other party and his sureties." (Santos v. Moir, 36 Phil., 350, p. 353.)

    "A claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a preliminary injunction must be presented in the principal action, and judgment therefor must be included in the final judgment of the case. The remedy is exclusive and by failing to file a motion for the determination of the damages in time and while the judgment is still under the control of the Court, the claimant losses his right to such damages." Japco v. City of Manila, 48 Phil., p. 651.)

    "The rule, therefore, is that a claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction must be filed before the trial or, in the discretion of the court, before entry of final judgment. It appearing that respondent Lim sought to recover damages upon the injunction bonds only on July 29, 1948, when the decisions in the three proceedings in which the writs of preliminary injunctions were issued had become final, the herein respondent courts could no longer make any adjudication in favor of respondent Lim. . . .." (Facundo v. Tan, 47 Off. Gaz., 2912.)

    The respondents maintain that certiorari does not lie, because petitioner’s remedy was to appeal. The general rule is that these special civil actions will not be entertained where there is a remedy by appeal. However, exceptions have heretofore been made in several instances wherein the lower court acted without jurisdiction. (See Moran Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. 2, p. 168.) .

    Again they lastly allege that one Joseph Gotianuy, a high official of the Visayan Surety, paid the respondent Isaac Lacson the sum of P1,500 on March 5, 1954. If such payment was tendered on behalf of the Visayan Surety or with its consent, this petition should now be dismissed. But Gotianuy, it clearly appears, paid out of his own personal funds, "to keep up with my personal cordial relations with him (Lacson)" — without the consent of the Visayan Surety, and with the distinct understanding that the disbursement shall not affect these proceedings.

    In view of the foregoing, the order of the respondent judge dated November 28, 1953 is hereby revoked, with costs. So ordered.

    Pablo, Acting C. J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. The motion of February 23, contained no claim for damages arising out of the issuance of injunction.

    2. Manakil v. Revilla 42 Phil., 81; Roman Catholic Bishop v. Municipality of Unisan, 44 Phil., 866; see Francisco, Annotated Rules of Court (1940) Vol. 1 pp. 619-620.

    G.R. No. L-7541   April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL. <br /><br />096 Phil 878


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED