October 1907 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > October 1907 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-4052 October 8, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD
009 Phil 13:
009 Phil 13:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-4052. October 8, 1907. ]
ENRIQUE F. SOMES, Plaintiff, v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL., Defendants.
Chicote and Miranda, for Plaintiff.
Rosado, Sanz & Opisso, for Aniceto Ruiz Velez, one of the defendants.
Kinney & Lawrence, for the other defendants.
SYLLABUS
1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; INJUNCTION; DAMAGES. — A party who seeks damages by reason of the granting of an injunction must file, in the court wherein the action is pending, specifications in the nature of a complaint setting forth the grounds upon which damages are sought, serving copies thereof upon the parties against whom damages are claimed.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J. :
On the 25th day of May, 1907, the plaintiff presented a petition in this court praying for the writ of certiorari and an injunction.
On the same day the injunction was issued in accordance with the prayer of the petition after the plaintiff had given a bond, in the sum of P10,000, signed by Gabriel Schmidt and Fridolin Wiget, which was duly approved.
On the 8th day June, 1907, the defendants, the Hon. A. S. Crossfield and Rafael Molina y Salvador, presented a motion for the dissolution of the said injunction. On the 18th day of June, 1907, upon a consideration of the motion for dissolution, the motion was granted and the injunction was dissolved.
On the 26th day of June, 1907, a demurrer was presented on behalf of the defendants, the Hon. A. S. Crossfield and Rafael Molina y Salvador, and the sheriff of the city of Manila, to the petition filed in said cause, alleging:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) That the acts of the Court of First Instance in said complaint, complained of, are in no respect in excess of the jurisdiction of said court; and
(2) That for the acts complained of there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal to this court by way of bill of exceptions.
After hearing the respective parties on the merits of the said demurrer, this court sustained the demurrer and gave the plaintiff five days within which to file an amended complaint. 1 The five days having expired and the plaintiff not having filed an amended complaint, the defendants presented a motion in this court praying that a commissioner be appointed to receive evidence in the Province of Albay as to the amount of damages sustained by the defendants by reason of the aforesaid injunction, or that the court take such other means as would be fit and convenient for ascertaining such damages, and that judgment for the same be included in the final judgment against the plaintiff, in accordance with section 170 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, against the plaintiff and against the sureties on the bond given by the plaintiff to secure the issuance of the foregoing injunction; that final judgment in the above-entitled cause be suspended until the amount of damages so ascertained might be included therein.
On the 19th day of August, 1907, this court made an order requiring the defendants to serve a copy of the foregoing motion, asking for the appointment of a commissioner, upon the said bondsmen Schmidt and Wiget, and in accordance with said order the sheriff of the city of Manila served a copy of said motion upon the bondsmen on the 21st day of August, 1907.
The question presented by the record is, What is the procedure which should be adopted in view of the provisions of section 170 above referred to, for the purpose of recovering damages, resulting from the allowance of an injunction, against the principal and the bondsmen in such injunction proceedings? Said section 170 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Upon final trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff or to the defendant, upon the obligations," given to secure an injunction, "shall be ascertained by the court trying the action, and judgment for the same shall be included in the final judgment and the judgment shall be both against the plaintiff and against the sureties upon any obligation given under the provisions of any of . . ." the provisions relating to the granting of an injunction.
In view of these provisions requiring that the damages shall be ascertained upon the final judgment, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that it is the duty of the parties seeking damages by reason of the granting of the injunction to file in the court in which the action is pending, specifications, in the nature of a complaint, setting forth the grounds upon which damages are claimed, serving copies of such specifications upon the parties against whom the damages are claimed, and asking that the court shall take such steps as may be advisable and necessary, by hearing the parties itself, or by appointing a commission for the purpose.
Therefore it is the judgment of this court that, if the defendants herein desire to recover damages against the plaintiff and his bondsmen, by reason of the said injunction, they must within ten days after receipt of this order file in this court specifications, setting forth the grounds upon which they expect to claim damages. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
On the same day the injunction was issued in accordance with the prayer of the petition after the plaintiff had given a bond, in the sum of P10,000, signed by Gabriel Schmidt and Fridolin Wiget, which was duly approved.
On the 8th day June, 1907, the defendants, the Hon. A. S. Crossfield and Rafael Molina y Salvador, presented a motion for the dissolution of the said injunction. On the 18th day of June, 1907, upon a consideration of the motion for dissolution, the motion was granted and the injunction was dissolved.
On the 26th day of June, 1907, a demurrer was presented on behalf of the defendants, the Hon. A. S. Crossfield and Rafael Molina y Salvador, and the sheriff of the city of Manila, to the petition filed in said cause, alleging:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) That the acts of the Court of First Instance in said complaint, complained of, are in no respect in excess of the jurisdiction of said court; and
(2) That for the acts complained of there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal to this court by way of bill of exceptions.
After hearing the respective parties on the merits of the said demurrer, this court sustained the demurrer and gave the plaintiff five days within which to file an amended complaint. 1 The five days having expired and the plaintiff not having filed an amended complaint, the defendants presented a motion in this court praying that a commissioner be appointed to receive evidence in the Province of Albay as to the amount of damages sustained by the defendants by reason of the aforesaid injunction, or that the court take such other means as would be fit and convenient for ascertaining such damages, and that judgment for the same be included in the final judgment against the plaintiff, in accordance with section 170 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, against the plaintiff and against the sureties on the bond given by the plaintiff to secure the issuance of the foregoing injunction; that final judgment in the above-entitled cause be suspended until the amount of damages so ascertained might be included therein.
On the 19th day of August, 1907, this court made an order requiring the defendants to serve a copy of the foregoing motion, asking for the appointment of a commissioner, upon the said bondsmen Schmidt and Wiget, and in accordance with said order the sheriff of the city of Manila served a copy of said motion upon the bondsmen on the 21st day of August, 1907.
The question presented by the record is, What is the procedure which should be adopted in view of the provisions of section 170 above referred to, for the purpose of recovering damages, resulting from the allowance of an injunction, against the principal and the bondsmen in such injunction proceedings? Said section 170 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Upon final trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff or to the defendant, upon the obligations," given to secure an injunction, "shall be ascertained by the court trying the action, and judgment for the same shall be included in the final judgment and the judgment shall be both against the plaintiff and against the sureties upon any obligation given under the provisions of any of . . ." the provisions relating to the granting of an injunction.
In view of these provisions requiring that the damages shall be ascertained upon the final judgment, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that it is the duty of the parties seeking damages by reason of the granting of the injunction to file in the court in which the action is pending, specifications, in the nature of a complaint, setting forth the grounds upon which damages are claimed, serving copies of such specifications upon the parties against whom the damages are claimed, and asking that the court shall take such steps as may be advisable and necessary, by hearing the parties itself, or by appointing a commission for the purpose.
Therefore it is the judgment of this court that, if the defendants herein desire to recover damages against the plaintiff and his bondsmen, by reason of the said injunction, they must within ten days after receipt of this order file in this court specifications, setting forth the grounds upon which they expect to claim damages. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Somes v. Crossfield Et. Al., 8 Phil. Rep., 284.
