November 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > November 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 146624 : November 18, 2009] NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL, PETITIONER, V. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. :
[G.R. No. 146624 : November 18, 2009]
NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL, PETITIONER, V. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 18 November 2009:
G.R. No. 146624 - NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, et al, petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents.
In Resolution dated January 15, 2007, the Court resolved to dismiss petitioner Nikon Industrial Corporation's petition for review on certiorari against the Court of Appeals, et al, for failure to find any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the appellate court in upholding the Regional Trial Court of Makati's (Branch 146) order that denied petitioner's motion to dismiss the collection case filed against it by the private respondent Solidbank Corporation. We thus ordered the remand of the case to the trial court to hear and decide the collection case between the parties with dispatch. On account of the dismissal of petitioner's Rule 65 petition before us, we lifted the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued on February 21, 2001.
The Court's January 15, 2007 Resolution became final and executory upon entry of judgment made on February 15, 2007.
Despite the lifting of the TRO and the finality of the judgment, the petitioner did not secure the release of the TRO bond, and did so only . on July 8, 2009 in a Motion to Withdraw Bond for Temporary Restraining Order. The private respondent opposed the petitioner's motion in its Comment (With Motion to Release Bond to Private Respondent) dated July 17, 2009. It claimed that on account of the Court's finding that petitioner's Rule 65 petition was unmeritorious, it suffered "damages...sustained by reason of the issuance of the...[TRO]," and thus sought the release of the P100,000.00 bond in its favor. Private respondent based its claim on the following terms of the TRO:
We do not find private respondent's objections to the release of the bond meritorious.
An applicant praying for the issuance of a TRO is required, under Section 4 (b) of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, to file a bond in favor of the party enjoined to answer for all damages which the latter may sustain by reason of the temporary restraining order, if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Section 8 of the same Rule states that in proceeding against the bond, the party enjoined must follow the procedure provided under Section 20, Rule 57, which states:
At the time private respondent raised its objection to the release of the bond and sought payment of damages it allegedly sustained (but failed to specifically allege in its Comment), the Court's Resolution dismissing petitioner's Rule 65 petition had long become final and executory; an entry of judgment had in fact already been made more than two years before. The private respondent's claim against the bond was therefore belatedly filed and must be denied. In Carlos v. Sandoval [1] we said:
Section 20 essentially allows the application to be filed at any time before the judgment becomes executory. It should be filed in the same case that is the main action, and cannot be instituted separately. It should be filed with the court having jurisdiction over the case at the time of the application. The remedy provided by law 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 damages.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT petitioner Nikon Industrial Corporation's motion to release the bond in its favor and DENY private respondent Solidbank Corporation's opposition to the petitioner's motion.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 18th day of November, 2009.
G.R. No. 146624 - NIKON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, et al, petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents.
In Resolution dated January 15, 2007, the Court resolved to dismiss petitioner Nikon Industrial Corporation's petition for review on certiorari against the Court of Appeals, et al, for failure to find any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the appellate court in upholding the Regional Trial Court of Makati's (Branch 146) order that denied petitioner's motion to dismiss the collection case filed against it by the private respondent Solidbank Corporation. We thus ordered the remand of the case to the trial court to hear and decide the collection case between the parties with dispatch. On account of the dismissal of petitioner's Rule 65 petition before us, we lifted the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued on February 21, 2001.
The Court's January 15, 2007 Resolution became final and executory upon entry of judgment made on February 15, 2007.
Despite the lifting of the TRO and the finality of the judgment, the petitioner did not secure the release of the TRO bond, and did so only . on July 8, 2009 in a Motion to Withdraw Bond for Temporary Restraining Order. The private respondent opposed the petitioner's motion in its Comment (With Motion to Release Bond to Private Respondent) dated July 17, 2009. It claimed that on account of the Court's finding that petitioner's Rule 65 petition was unmeritorious, it suffered "damages...sustained by reason of the issuance of the...[TRO]," and thus sought the release of the P100,000.00 bond in its favor. Private respondent based its claim on the following terms of the TRO:
Said bond shall answer for the payment to private respondent of any damages which it may incur by reason of the issuance of the [TRO] sought, if it should be finally adjudged that said petitioners were not entitled thereto, effective upon approval by this Court of the bond to be posted, xxx
We do not find private respondent's objections to the release of the bond meritorious.
An applicant praying for the issuance of a TRO is required, under Section 4 (b) of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, to file a bond in favor of the party enjoined to answer for all damages which the latter may sustain by reason of the temporary restraining order, if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Section 8 of the same Rule states that in proceeding against the bond, the party enjoined must follow the procedure provided under Section 20, Rule 57, which states:
SEC. 20. Claim for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment.-An application for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching party and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case. xxx.
At the time private respondent raised its objection to the release of the bond and sought payment of damages it allegedly sustained (but failed to specifically allege in its Comment), the Court's Resolution dismissing petitioner's Rule 65 petition had long become final and executory; an entry of judgment had in fact already been made more than two years before. The private respondent's claim against the bond was therefore belatedly filed and must be denied. In Carlos v. Sandoval [1] we said:
Section 20 essentially allows the application to be filed at any time before the judgment becomes executory. It should be filed in the same case that is the main action, and cannot be instituted separately. It should be filed with the court having jurisdiction over the case at the time of the application. The remedy provided by law 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 damages.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT petitioner Nikon Industrial Corporation's motion to release the bond in its favor and DENY private respondent Solidbank Corporation's opposition to the petitioner's motion.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 18th day of November, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R.Nos. 135830, 136035, 137743, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 266.
