Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

027 Phil 249:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8998. March 19, 1914. ]

JOSE FLORENDO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ, defendant and appellee. JUAN CALVO and LUIS FOZ, sureties of the defendant Eustaquio P. Foz, Appellants.

Alberto Reyes for Appellants.

Jose M. de Valle for appellee Eustaquio P. Foz.

Julio Borbon Villamor for appellee Jose Florendo.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL: CONDITIONAL APPEAL BOND; LIABILITY OF SURETIES. — The appellants became the sureties of the defendant on an appeal bond, the condition of which was "that the appellant was obligated to the appellee in the sum of P2,000 Philippine currency, for the fulfillment of the judgment appealed from in case it should be wholly or partly affirmed." Said judgment was as follows: "For the reasons above expressed, the court decrees the specific performance by the defendant of the contract for the purchase and sale of the lands, said defendant to deliver to plaintiff the land described in the complaint; said defendant paying to the plaintiff the rents which he would save received for said lands described in the complaint from the 1st day of July, 1909, until full compliance with this judgment; that from the P4,000 deposited in the provincial treasury of Ilocos Sur there be paid to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church of Vigan the mortgage now due which the said church holds against the defendant, together with the costs of the action; that the balance of the said P4,000 after satisfying this decree shall be paid to the said defendant." Said balance of the P4,000, after the deduction of the mortgage of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, instead of being paid over to the defendant in this case, the appellant in the case in which the bond was given, was seized by another judgment creditor and applied to the payment of another and different judgment. Upon the appeal of the sureties from a judgment rendered against them upon said bond, Held: That the fulfillment of the said provision in the judgment ordering that the balance of the P4,000 which remained after the payment of the mortgage of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, be turned over the defendant in this case, the appellant in the case in which the bond was given, was not a condition precedent to their liability upon the bond, and that they were liable thereon although said provision was not carried out.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Sur by the sureties on an appeal bond rendered against them for the sum of P2,000, and from an order for the issuance of an execution thereon.

On the 9th of July, 1910, one Jose Florendo obtained judgment against Eustaquio P. Foz, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For the reasons above expressed, the court decrees the specific performance by the defendant of the contract for the purchase and sale of the lands, said defendant to deliver to plaintiff the land described in the complaint; said defendant paying to the plaintiff the rents which he would have received for said lands described in the complaint from the 1st day of July, 1909, until full compliance with this judgment; that from the P4,000 deposited in the provincial treasury of Ilocos Sur there be paid to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church of Vigan the mortgage now due which the said church holds against the defendant, together with the costs of the action; that the balance of the said P4,000 after satisfying this decree shall be paid to the said defendant."cralaw virtua1aw library

An appeal was taken from that judgment and, to stay execution, a bond was given with Juan Calvo and Luis Foz as sureties, in which the parties thereto recognized that they were "jointly and severally obligated to said Jose Florendo in the sum of two thousand pesos (P2,000) Philippine currency, for the payment of which well and truly to be made" they bound themselves "jointly and severally." The condition of the obligation was "that the appellant was obligated to the appellee in the sum of P2,000 Philippine currency, for the fulfillment of the judgment appealed from, in case it should be wholly or partly affirmed."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judgment appealed from was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 1

On the 20th of May 1912, the Court of First Instance ordered the provincial treasurer, in whose custody the sum of P4,000 mentioned in the judgment then was, to deliver to the clerk of the court the sum of P4,000, at the same time authorizing and ordering said clerk to pay to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church of Nueva Segovia, or to its representative or attorneys, the sum of P2,920.59, which was the amount of the mortgage held by said church against the defendant Eustaquio P. Foz, together with the interest thereon.

On the 24th of June, 1912, the sheriff of Ilocos Sur moved the court for an order requiring the delivery to him of the balance of the P4,000, or the sum of P1,079.41, in part satisfaction of another judgment against said Eustaquio P. Foz obtained on the 7th of March, 1911 , in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. On the 28th of June, 1912, in pursuance of this motion the court ordered its clerk to deliver to said sheriff for the purpose specified the said sum of P1,079.41, the balance of the said P4,000. This payment was made to the sheriff on the 20th of July, 1912.

On the 22d of July, 1912, the plaintiff in this case moved the court for the issuance of an execution for the recovery of the other sums found by the judgment heretofore referred to as due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiff. In pursuance of this motion the court on the 31st of August, 1912, issued an execution to the sheriff of the city of Manila directing him to seize goods and chattels of Eustaquio P. Foz for the recovery of the sum of P2,294.64. On the 14th of October following, the sheriff of Manila returned the execution nulla bona, stating in his return that Eustaquio P. Foz had no goods or chattels subject to levy and sale. On the 11th of November following, the attorney for the plaintiff moved the court for the issuance of an execution against the property of the sureties, Juan Calvo and Luis Foz, to the extent of P2,000. The said sureties appeared to combat said motion, asked that the execution of the judgment be suspended and that the court declare that the payment of said sum of P1,079.41 to the sheriff of Ilocos Sur for the purposes for which it was paid was illegal and prejudicial to the interests of the sureties. They also prayed that all the goods an chattels of Eustaquio P. Foz be levied upon and sold for the satisfaction of the execution before their property was made subject thereto.

The learned trial court denied these motions and ordered that execution issue against the sureties Juan Calvo an Luis Foz for the satisfaction of the judgment referred to, not to exceed the sum of P2,000, the penalty of the undertaking. This appeal is from that order.

The appellants assign two errors. First, that "the Court of First Instance erred in not declaring invalid and of force or effects the payment of the sum of P1,079.41 to the sheriff of Ilocos Sur in part satisfaction of the execution issued by the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila on the 30th day of April, 1912." Second, that "the court erred in not declaring null and void the undertaking executed by Juan Calvo and Luis Foz jointly and severally with Eustaquio P. Foz upon the ground that said Foz was insolvent at the time of and since the execution of said undertaking."cralaw virtua1aw library

Speaking of the second alleged error first, we might say that we have been cited to no provision of law, and we know of none, which renders an appeal bond void because the appellant happens to be insolvent at the time the bond is executed. The precise purpose of a bond on appeal is to protect the appellee from the insolvency of the appellant and to assure to him the effective execution of the judgment on the termination of the litigation.

In regard to the first error assigned, the appellants argue that they bound themselves to the fulfillment of the judgment in case it should be affirmed and that said judgment contained a clause that the balance of the P4,000, after paying the mortgage held by the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, should be turned over to the appellant in the action in which said judgment was obtained; and that it was a breach of the condition upon which the bond was given to permit that sum to be turned over for the payment of another and different judgment. They also argue that said sum having been paid to a stranger instead of to the defendant and appellant, the execution in all its parts of the judgment appealed from was rendered impossible, the defendant was deprived of certain resources which he otherwise would have had, and the plaintiff and appellee in this case would have collected upon his execution said sum of P1,079.41, thus reducing to that extent the sum which the sureties must pay.

Perhaps the appellants have some grievance at the manner in which the P1,079.41 was handled by the court when we look at the requirement of the judgment for the execution of which they stood guarantors. It is a grievance, however, which, in our judgment, cannot be remedied in this proceeding or on this appeal, even if it be conceded that it have a remedy at all. The sureties bound themselves to the fulfillment of the judgment, not in those particulars in which it was favorable to the appellants, but to those in which it was favorable to the appellee. The appellee, if his judgment should be affirmed, was entitled to receive a certain sum of money, or sum which, by a subsequent procedure, was made certain. To assure him the payment of this sum, the obligation was incurred by the sureties on the bond. They may have had, generally speaking, strong reasons to believe that in case they were obliged to pay the judgment they would receive the benefit of the sum of P1,079.41, which the court had ordered to be turned over to the defendant after the payment of the church mortgage. This, however, was merely an expectation, a hope rather than a right. The judgment upon which that sum was paid might have taken preference over the judgment for the payment of which they stood surety. In that event there would have been grave doubt of the efficacy of the order, if contested , that said sum of P1,079.41 be paid upon said judgment, as against the rights of the judgment creditor upon whose judgment the sum was actually paid. To say the least, the sureties took the chance of having that sum withdrawn from the defendant’s resources and paid upon another obligation, or of having it paid to Foz himself for his personal use. As a legal proposition the sureties agreed to see that the judgment appealed from should be paid if affirmed, and that is all that the appellee is asking of them.

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Arellano, C.J., Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 20 Phil. Rep., 388.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 7657 March 6, 1914 - AMBROSIO TIEMPO v. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES

    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 8699 March 7, 1914 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 7352 March 15, 1914 - CATALINO HILLARO v. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL

    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914

    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8937 March 21, 1914 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING. CO. v. PEDRO N. MOJICA

    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323



  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978


  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 8375 March 30, 1914 - INTERISLAND EXPRESS CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447