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-8107   April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL. <br /><br />096 Phil 900

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-8107. April 29, 1955.]

    VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC, ET AL., Respondents.

    Jose Perez Cardenas for Petitioner.

    Lorenzo Sumulong and Antonio C. Maraquel for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. JUDGMENT; SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS FOR DAMAGES; SHOULD BE FILED BEFORE JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL. — In accordance with section 9, Rule 61 and following the procedure outlined in Sec. 20 of Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, respondent in this case should have filed a claim in a supplemental complaint in the court of first instance for the rentals of the land due up to the time of the judgment in said court, and an application in Supreme Court for the rentals due from the date of the judgment appealed from to the date of the latter court’s judgment. The supplemental complaint in the court of first instance and application in Supreme Court should have been made before final judgment in either court, so that the damages awarded could have been included therein.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE OF THE LAW. — The philosophy of this requirement has been carefully pointed out in the case of Santos v. Moir, 36 Phil., 350, thus: "The purpose of these provisions is not difficult to ascertain. It does away with the necessity of calling the same witnesses in a second action to give the same testimony they gave in the first; the presentation of the same questions which had been litigated before. It is clear that when the cause is finally adjudicated and the injunction continued or dissolved the right to the injunction is definitely and finally determined; and with it the right to damages. The liability of the sureties is also determined in large part by such adjudication. Thereafter the evidence as to their liability, if any, is largely formal. This being so, why not settle the whole matter at the time the cause is decided on the merits? It not only save an extra action in the trial court but it avoids an extra appeal. If there are two separate judgments in two separate actions there may be two appeals; one from the judgment on the merits, the other from the judgment for damages for the wrongful issuance of the injunction. Why have two appeals when there need be one only?"

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROOF OF DAMAGES; SECTION 17, RULE 59 APPLICABLE TO ATTACHMENT BOND NOT TO RECEIVERSHIP. — Section 17, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court is applicable to attachment bonds only and has not been made applicable in cases of receivership.

    4. ID.; EXECUTION; JUDGMENT AGAINST SURETY REQUIRED; EXECUTION AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR AND NOT SURETY. — A judgment against a defendant can not per se be enforced by execution against its surety in his counterbond; a judgment against its surety must first be secured before his counterbond may be proceeded against.


    D E C I S I O N


    LABRADOR, J.:


    This is a proceeding by way of certiorari against an order of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Honorable Bernabe de Aquino presiding. In civil case No. 397 of said court, entitled Ysidra Cojuanco, Et. Al. v. Manuel Ernesto Gonzales, filed in said court in May, 1949, judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs P6,000 a year from March 1, 1941 as rentals of a parcel of land leased by plaintiffs to the defendant. This judgment was affirmed by us on September 15, 1953. On September 12, 1949, while the case was pending trial, plaintiffs prayed for the appointment of a receiver for the property leased, filing a bond therefor. But as the defendant filed a counterbond, defendant was allowed to retain the land leased. The terms of the bond by the defendant are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "NOW THEREFORE, WE MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALES as Principal and the VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION as Surety, hereby bind ourselves jointly and severally to the plaintiffs, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns in an amount not exceeding thirty six thousand (P36.000.00) pesos, Philippine currency, conditioned that the defendant will pay all damages which the said plaintiffs may suffer by reason of the non-appointment or the discharge of the receiver in the above-entitled case."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As stated above by reason of the above counterbond filed by him, defendant continued in possession of the property. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the judgment of the Court of First Instance already referred to was affirmed. Upon the return of the records of the case to the Court of First Instance, plaintiffs filed a motion dated December 23, 1953, alleging that by reason of the filing of the counterbond by the Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation, the plaintiffs were deprived of the harvest of the land leased, and praying that execution issue against the said Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation for the amount of its bond. The motion was amended on February 15, 1954 so as to pray for opportunity to prove the damages that had been caused plaintiffs by the non-appointment of the receiver. The Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation filed an opposition to the amended motion, but this was overruled and the motion granted in an order dated August 4, 1954, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Acting on the amended motion dated February 16, 1954, filed by the representation of plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 397, the Court finds said amended motion well taken.

    "IN VIEW WHEREOF, let this amended motion be set for August 16, 1954 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning, for the reception of evidence on damages suffered by plaintiffs by reason of non-appointment of receiver in Civil Case No. 397. Upon the reception of the evidence the Court will determine the damages suffered, for the payment of which execution will issue against the Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation of Manila.

    "So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is against the above order of the Court of First Instance that the petition for certiorari has been filed, petitioner alleging that the damages sought to be claimed are not included in the judgment, which had become final and that the order is in excess of the court’s jurisdiction, as it amounts to an order for the reopening of the case for the purpose of amending the decision which has already become final and executory, and adding thereto a liability of the petitioner which was not adjudged in the original decision. The principal defenses interposed by the respondents are that the petitioner herein had notice that respondents are claiming damages for the retention of the leased premises by the defendant Manuel Ernesto Gonzales; that the proceeding adopted by the Judge in its order is a summary hearing authorized by the provisions of Section 17 of Rule 59 to enforce the liability on the counterbond; that the notice to the surety and proof of damages required in Section 20 of Rule 59 was complied with at the trial of the case because counsel for petitioner herein was counsel for the defendant in the case; and that the proceeding complained of was within the power of the court as it was merely executing its judgment, the said order being merely to carry out the execution of the judgment, which execution falls within his authority from the time the judgment becomes final until the expiration of five years from the entry of judgment.

    The rule applicable to the case at bar is Section 9, Rule 61, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Sec. 9. Judgment to include recovery against sureties. — The amount, if any, to be awarded to either party upon any bond filed by the other in accordance with the provisions of this rule, shall be claimed, ascertained, and granted under the same procedure as prescribed in section 20 of Rule 59."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In accordance therewith, and following the procedure outlined in Section 20 of Rule 59, respondents in this case should have filed a claim in a supplemental complaint in the court of first instance for the rentals of the land due up to the time of the judgment up to November 4, 1950) in said court, and an application in this Court for the rentals due from the date of the judgment appealed from (November 4, 1950) to the date of our judgment (September 15, 1953) for the rentals up to the latter date. The supplemental complaint in the court of first instance and the application in this Court should have been made before the judgment in either court was rendered or had become final, so that the damages awarded could have been included therein. The philosophy of this requirement has been carefully pointed out in the case of Santos v. Moir, 36 Phil., 350, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The purpose of these provision is not difficult to ascertain. It does away with the necessity of calling the same witnesses in a second action to give the same testimony they have in the first; the presentation of the same evidence a second times; and the litigation of the same questions which had been litigated before. It is clear that when the cause is finally adjudicated and the injunction continued or dissolved the right to the injunction is definitely and finally determined; and with it the right to damages. The liability of the sureties is also determined in large part by such adjudication. Thereafter, the evidence as to their liability, if any, is largely formal. This being so, why not settle the whole matter at the time the cause is decided on the merits?

    "It not only saves an extra action in the trial court but it avoids an extra appeal. If there are two separate actions there may be two appeals; one from the judgment on the merits, the other from the judgment for damages for wrongful issuance of the injunction. Why have two appeals when there need be one only?"

    The provision has been consistently followed in a long line of decisions (Monteverde v. Nakata, 30 Phil., 608; Yap Unki v. Chua Jamco, 14 Phil., 602; Nava v. Hofileña, 53 Phil., 738, etc.) , and there is no reason for deviating from the express language of the provision and the consistent rulings of the Court.

    But it is contended by respondents that the order is in consonance with Section 17 of Rule 59 of the Rules of Court. This section is applicable to attachment bonds only and has not been made applicable in cases of receivership.

    It is also contended that the order complained of has been issued under the authority of the court to execute its judgments. As the judgment is against the defendant personally, not against the surety on his counterbond, the execution to be issued must be against the property of the defendant only (Sec. 8, Rule 39, Rules of Court), and it can not issue against the counterbond because there is no judgment against the petitioner thereon. As a matter of fact, the order complained of was issued to secure a judgment against the surety on the counterbond of defendant, which shows the absence of a judgment against the surety to be executed. A judgment against a defendant can not per se be enforced by execution against the surety on his counterbond; a judgment against the surety must first be secured, before his counterbond may be proceeded against.

    Wherefore, the petition is hereby granted, the order complaint of is revoked and the preliminary injunction we have granted made absolute. With costs against respondents.

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

    G.R. No. L-8107   April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL. <br /><br />096 Phil 900


    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