Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > April 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23920 April 25, 1968 - RAMON R. DIZON v. LORENZO J. VALDES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23920. April 25, 1968.]

RAMON R. DIZON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LORENZO J. VALDES, VALLESON, INC., and AUGUSTO J. VALDES, Defendants-Appellees.

Jose Agbulos, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Felix Law Office for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. SURETY; COUNTERBOND; ACTION FOR DAMAGES. — Section 17 of Rule 59 of the Rules of Court contemplates of proceedings on execution after judgment. It is only thereafter that liability upon the surety’s bond may be determined. The key term in section 17 is the phrase "if the execution be returned unsatisfied in whole or in part." Until such proceeding shall have taken place and unless unsatisfied liability under the judgment still exists, no action upon the counterbond may be taken against the surety.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FOR WHAT SHALL IT ANSWER. — Rule 20 of Rule 59 obviously refers to the recovery of damages by a party against whom attachment was issued, a remedy available to the defendant, not the plaintiff. It is undoubted, therefore, that, upon the applicable rules, the counter-bond does not answer for damages on account of the lifting of the attachment, but for the payment of the amount due under the judgment that may be recovered by an attaching creditor. The counter-bond precisely stands "in place of the properties so released. "The release of such property cannot really "prejudice the rights of the attaching party."


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


The case before us is an incident in a suit for a sum of money (Civil Case Q-2618, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch), entitled "Ramon R. Dizon, Plaintiff, v. Lorenzo J. Valdes, Valleson, Inc., and Augusto J. Valdes, Defendants." Judgment was, on December 2, 1960, there rendered directing defendants Valleson, Inc. and Augusto J. Valdes (Lorenzo J. Valdes excluded) "to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff the amount of P6,260.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from September 1, 1954 until fully paid and to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P600.00 with costs." The counterclaim of defendants Lorenzo J. Valdes and Valleson, Inc. was dismissed.

On January 11, 1961, Valleson, Inc. filed its notice of appeal. Its appeal was perfected on February 11, 1961.

Meanwhile, on January 10, 1961, one day before Valleson’s notice of appeal, plaintiff petitioned for and the trial court directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the properties, real and personal, of defendants Augusto J. Valdes and Valleson, Inc. upon an P11,730-bond. On January 11, said bond having been filed, the corresponding writ was issued. Pursuant thereto, garnishment notices were served by the Manila Sheriff on one Restituto Sibal and the Philippine Guaranty Co.

On February 9, 1961, the judgment debtors moved to dissolve the writ of attachment, upon an P11,730-counter-bond subscribed by the Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. The following day, February 10, 1961, the trial court dissolved the writ.

On February 24, 1961, plaintiff registered a motion to admit its "Claim for Damages" attached thereto. Plaintiff’s claim was that the dissolution of the attachment "put out of the reach of the plaintiff the properties and assets which may be held to answer for the adjudged claim" ; and that, by reason thereof, "plaintiff suffered and will suffer damages in the amount of P11,730.00 plus the corresponding 12% on interest thereon and attorney’s fees and costs." He then prayed that "defendants and the Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., be ordered to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P11,730.00 plus interests, expenses, and attorney’s fees."cralaw virtua1aw library

On March 1, 1961, the surety, Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., opposed. Assertion was made that pursuant to the Rules of Court (then, Section 17, Rule 59; now Section 17, Rule 57), the surety on any counter-bond shall only become charged and bound to pay plaintiff upon demand, the amount due under the judgment; and that such amount may be recovered from the surety after notice and summary hearing in the same action — only if execution be returned unsatisfied in whole or in part.cralawnad

On April 25, 1961, at the hearing fixed by the court, plaintiff presented evidence on the merits of its claim for damages, in the absence of defendants and surety, who made no appearance thereat.

The trial court, in its order of May 16, 1961, ruled that plaintiff’s claim for damages was premature, since the main case was then still pending appeal.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on July 10, 1961, was thwarted by the court below on September 16, 1961.

Under the environmental facts, can plaintiff’s claim for damages on defendants’ counter-bond prosper? The answer must be in the negative.

1. By the terms of the counter-bond itself, 1 liability thereunder attaches only "in case the plaintiff recovers judgment in the action." Indeed, by Section 12 of Rule 59 of the old Rules, 2 the law in force at the time the counter-bond was executed, the statutory counter-bond was made "to secure the payment to the plaintiff of any judgment he may recover in the action." Complementary to this legal precept is Section 17 of the same Rule 59 of the old Rules 3 — which should be deemed as read into the bond — viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 17. When execution returned unsatisfied, recovery had upon bond. — If the execution be returned unsatisfied in whole or in part, the surety or sureties on any bond given pursuant to the provisions of this rule to secure the payment of the judgment shall become finally charged on such bond, and bound to pay to the plaintiff upon demand the amount due under the judgment, which amount may be recovered from such surety or sureties after notice and summary hearing in the same action."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since at the time the claim for damages was registered, the case was still pending appeal, it is quite obvious that the motion for the claim for damages was premature. And the lower court thus correctly ruled out plaintiff’s motion. For, Section 17 contemplates of proceedings on execution after judgment. And, it is only thereafter that liability upon the surety’s bond may be determined. The key term Section 17 is the phrase" [i]f the execution be returned unsatisfied in whole or in part." Until such proceeding shall have taken place and unless unsatisfied liability under the judgment still exists, no action upon the counter bond may be taken against the surety. 4

2. We do not follow plaintiff when he says that what controls here is Section 20 of Rule 57 (then Rule 59). By its very terms, 5 this obviously refers to the recovery of damages by a party against whom attachment was issued. This is a remedy available to the defendants here, not the plaintiff.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

It is therefore not to be doubted that, upon the applicable rules, the counter-bond does not answer for damages on account of the lifting of the attachment, but for the payment of the amount due under the judgment that may be recovered by an attaching creditor. 6

3. Nor is importance to be attached to plaintiff’s argument that the dissolution of the attachments put out of his reach the properties and assets answerable for his claim. The counter-bond, it should be emphasized, precisely stands "in place of the properties so released." 7 Thus, the release of such property cannot really "prejudice the rights of the attaching party." 8

We accordingly affirm the lower court’s order of May 16,1961 under review.

Costs against plaintiff-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J .B .L ., Makalintal, Bengzon, J .P., Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Dizon and Zaldivar, JJ., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Record on Appeal, pp. 43-47; Italics supplied.

2. Now Section 12, Rule 57.

3. Substantially the same as Section 17, Rule 57 of the present Rules.

4. See: Bautista v. Joaquin, 46 Phil. 885, 890.

5. Section 20, Rule 59, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 20. Claim for damages on plaintiff’s bond on account of illegal attachment. — If the judgment on the action be in favor of the defendant, he may recover, upon the bond given by the plaintiff, damages resulting from the attachment. Such damages may be awarded only upon application and after proper hearing, and shall be included in the final judgment. The application must be filed before the trial or, in the discretion of the court, before entry of the final judgment, with due notice to the plaintiff and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof. Damages sustained during the pendency of an appeal may be claimed by the defendant, if the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to him, by filing an application therewith, with notice to the plaintiff and his surety or sureties, and the appellate court may allow the application to be heard and decided by the trial court."cralaw virtua1aw library

6. Anzures v. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., 92 Phil 742, 743, Cajefe v. Fernandez L-15709, October 19, 1960.

7. Section 12, Rule 59 (now Rule 57); Anzures v. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., supra, at p. 743.

8. Manila Mercantile Co. v. Flores, 50 Phil. 759, 763.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24658 April 3, 1968 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25811 April 3, 1968 - THE CENTRAL (POBLACION) BARRIO, ET AL. v. CITY TREASURER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25826 April 3, 1968 - CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY v. CALIXTO WANDAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26208 April 3, 1968 - RAMON P. FERNANDEZ v. EDUARDO ROMUALDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26383 April 3, 1968 - PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO VILLASOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25599 April 4, 1968 - HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21450 April 15, 1968 - SERAFIN TIJAM, ET AL. v. MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21603 April 15, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ENTRINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21497 April 16, 1968 - AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING, INC. ET AL. v. HAMBURG-AMERIKA LINIE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21686 April 16, 1968 - LE HUA SIA v. LUIS B. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24371 April 16, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANCIO GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25298 April 16, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL FONTILLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26563 April 16, 1968 - RODOLFO ANDICO v. AMADO G. ROAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21553 April 17, 1968 - IN RE: JOHN GO CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18173 April 22, 1968 - BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. MIGUEL CUENCO

  • G.R. No. L-21961 April 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL R. CASTILLEJOS

  • G.R. No. L-22150 April 22, 1968 - SWITZERLAND GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24887 April 22, 1968 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25704 April 24, 1968 - ANGEL JOSE WAREHOUSING CO., INC. v. CHELDA ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19590 April 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHAW YAW SHUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22130-L-22132 April 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRITO (PIDDY) WONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22367 April 25, 1968 - AMADOR IBARDOLAZA v. FELIX V. MACALALAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23266 April 25, 1968 - LAGUNA TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL. v. LAGUNA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23562 April 25, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ALBERTO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-23685 April 25, 1968 - CIRILA EMILIA v. EPIFANIO BADO (Alias Paño), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23783 April 25, 1968 - JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23885 April 25, 1968 - FIDELINO C. AGAWIN v. QUINTIN CABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23920 April 25, 1968 - RAMON R. DIZON v. LORENZO J. VALDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24043 April 25, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24286 April 25, 1968 - IN RE CHUA BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24540 April 25, 1968 - ANTONIO LEE, EN BANC v. LEE HIAN TIU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25055 April 25, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LAUREANO BROS., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26057 & L-26092 April 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28562 April 25, 1968 - DIMALOMPING MACUD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23497 April 26, 1968 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. ESTRELLA VDA. DE LUMANLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23658 April 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COSME BAYONGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24080 April 26, 1968 - SIMEON CORDOVIS, ET. AL. v. BASILISA A. DE OBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25775 April 26, 1968 - TOMASITA BUCOY v. REYNALDO PAULINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25043 April 26, 1968 - ANTONIO ROXAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25310 April 26, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 533 April 29, 1968 - IN RE: FLORENCIO MALLARE

  • G.R. No. L-17077 April 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WENCESLAO FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20800 April 29, 1968 - CITIZEN’S SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. SOLOMON LORENZANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22946 April 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO DIVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23712 April 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAMONA RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23769 April 29, 1968 - REGINA ANTONIO, ET AL. v. PELAGIO BARROGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23924 April 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE S. TANJUTCO

  • G.R. No. L-25856 April 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACINTO RICAPLAZA

  • G.R. No. L-26055 April 29, 1968 - FELIPE SUÑGA, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27260 April 29, 1968 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-28790 April 29, 1968 - ANTONIO H. NOBLEJAS v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19546 April 30, 1968 - FRANCISCO CELESTIAL, ET AL. v. JOSE L. GESTOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20060 April 30, 1968 - LILIA DE JESUS-SEVILLA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21257 April 30, 1968 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21260 April 30, 1968 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. GO SOC & SONS AND SY GUI HUAT, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21839 April 30, 1968 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22035 April 30, 1968 - LEONCIA SAN ROQUE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23202 April 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMARICO ELIZAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24711 April 30, 1968 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFLU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24732 April 30, 1968 - PIO SIAN MELLIZA v. CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27486 April 30, 1968 - REBAR BUILDINGS, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28472 April 30, 1968 - CALTEX FILIPINO MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28536 April 30, 1968 - SECURITY BANK EMPLOYEES UNION-NATU, ET AL. v. SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, ET AL.