June 1966 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > June 1966 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-20705 June 20, 1966 LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. RAFAEL P. GUERRERO, SR., ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-20705. June 20, 1966.]
LUZON SURETY CO., INC., Petitioner, v. RAFAEL P. GUERRERO, SR., ET AL., Respondents.
Tolentino, Garcia and D. R. Cruz for Petitioner.
Antonio T. de Jesus for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. INJUNCTION BOND; EXECUTION AGAINST THE BOND WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIRED BY LAW; CASE AT BAR. — The issue in this case is whether or not a writ of execution could be issued against an injunction bond without the notice and hearing required by law. Held: In accordance with the provision of Section 9, Rule 60 and Section 20, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, the party enjoined must make a formal claim for damages and said claim must be set for hearing not only to give the claimant an opportunity to serve such damages as he claim to have suffered by reason of the injunction issued against him but also to give the adverse party an opportunity to defend himself (Section 9, Rule 58, in relation to Section 20, Rule 57, Rules of Court). Only after such hearing may the corresponding judgment be rendered resolving the claim for damages. In the case at bar, the respondent judge issued ex parte the order for the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution against the bond filed by petitioner without holding a hearing for the purposes just referred to. Obviously, therefore, said order — and necessarily the writ of execution issued thereunder are void.
2. RECOVERY OF DAMAGES CAUSED THROUGH IMPROVIDENT ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENT CONCERNING FILING OF CLAIM; CASE AT BAR. — Damage caused through the improvident issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may not be recovered in a separate action but must be claimed and determined in the same action where the injunction bond was filed. In the case at bar, the allegations and prayer for relief made in the motion to dismiss filed on August 23, 1962 and in the ex-parte motion for execution dated December 6, 1962, comply substantially with the requirement concerning the filing of a claim, but no hearing in connection therewith was held before the writ of execution complained of was issued. The lower court should therefore hold the required hearing in relation to such claim for damages and afterwards proceed to determine the same.
2. RECOVERY OF DAMAGES CAUSED THROUGH IMPROVIDENT ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENT CONCERNING FILING OF CLAIM; CASE AT BAR. — Damage caused through the improvident issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may not be recovered in a separate action but must be claimed and determined in the same action where the injunction bond was filed. In the case at bar, the allegations and prayer for relief made in the motion to dismiss filed on August 23, 1962 and in the ex-parte motion for execution dated December 6, 1962, comply substantially with the requirement concerning the filing of a claim, but no hearing in connection therewith was held before the writ of execution complained of was issued. The lower court should therefore hold the required hearing in relation to such claim for damages and afterwards proceed to determine the same.
D E C I S I O N
DIZON, J.:
On January 9, 1962, Rafael P. Guerrero filed an action for ejectment with the Municipal Court of Bacolod City against the spouses Felipe Navarro because of their alleged failure to pay the agreed rentals (Civil Case No. 3021). As the latter defaulted, the court, after receiving Guerrero’s evidence, rendered judgment in his favor. The judgment having become final and executory, the court, upon the motion of Guerrero, issued a writ of execution by virtue of which several personal effects belonging to the Navarros were levied upon by the sheriff. Prior to their sale at public auction, and after several unsuccessful attempts to have the Municipal Court set aside the aforesaid writ of execution, Navarro filed a petition for relief with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (Civil Case No. 6743) praying that the judgment and the writ of execution mentioned heretofore be set aside. Upon his filing a bond in the amount of P600.00, with the Luzon Surety Co., Inc., as surety, the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the sheriff from selling the properties levied upon and ordering their release.
After several postponements, the Court, on October 29, 1962, dismissed the petition for relief because of Navarros failure to prosecute his case, at the same time holding his bond liable for whatever damages Guerrero may have suffered by reason of the injunction. on December 8, 1962, the court also issued, ex-parte, an order for the issuance of a writ of execution against the bond filed by herein petitioner. Thereupon the latter moved to have the aforesaid order and writ set aside on the ground that the same were issued without the notice and hearing required by law. As this motion was denied, petitioner Luzon Surety Co., Inc., filed the present petition for certiorari, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction which We issued on February 16, 1963.
The issue to be resolved now is whether or not the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or exceeded his court’s jurisdiction in issuing the order and writ complained of.
As shown by the facts stated heretofore, the bond filed by petitioner was an injunction bond conditioned that the same shall answer — up to the amount of P600.00 — for such damages as the party enjoined may suffer by reason of the injunction, should the court later declare that the same was issued without sufficient cause. in accordance with the provision of Section 9, Rule 60, and Section 20, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, the party enjoined must make a formal claim for such damages and said claim must be set for hearing to give the claimant an opportunity to prove such damages as he claims to have suffered by reason of the injunction issued against him, and also to give the adverse party an opportunity to defend himself (Section 9, Rule 58, in relation to Section 20, Rule 57, Rules of Court). Only after such hearing may the corresponding judgment be rendered resolving the claim for damages (Visayan Surety, etc., v. Pascual, 85 Phil., 779; 47 Off. Gaz., 5075; Underwriters Insurance Co., v. Tan, 107 Phil., 911.)
In the present case, it is not denied that the respondent judge, after dismissing the petition for relief filed by petitioner, issued ex-parte the order of December 8, 1962 providing for the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution against the bond filed by petitioner. It held no hearing to determine whether the claimant had suffered damages by reason of the preliminary injunction issued against him, and to give an opportunity to the surety to be heard. Obviously, therefore, said order — and necessarily the writ of execution issued thereunder — are void.
WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is granted, with costs against respondent Guerrero. The preliminary injunction issued heretofore is hereby made final.
Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
After several postponements, the Court, on October 29, 1962, dismissed the petition for relief because of Navarros failure to prosecute his case, at the same time holding his bond liable for whatever damages Guerrero may have suffered by reason of the injunction. on December 8, 1962, the court also issued, ex-parte, an order for the issuance of a writ of execution against the bond filed by herein petitioner. Thereupon the latter moved to have the aforesaid order and writ set aside on the ground that the same were issued without the notice and hearing required by law. As this motion was denied, petitioner Luzon Surety Co., Inc., filed the present petition for certiorari, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction which We issued on February 16, 1963.
The issue to be resolved now is whether or not the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or exceeded his court’s jurisdiction in issuing the order and writ complained of.
As shown by the facts stated heretofore, the bond filed by petitioner was an injunction bond conditioned that the same shall answer — up to the amount of P600.00 — for such damages as the party enjoined may suffer by reason of the injunction, should the court later declare that the same was issued without sufficient cause. in accordance with the provision of Section 9, Rule 60, and Section 20, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, the party enjoined must make a formal claim for such damages and said claim must be set for hearing to give the claimant an opportunity to prove such damages as he claims to have suffered by reason of the injunction issued against him, and also to give the adverse party an opportunity to defend himself (Section 9, Rule 58, in relation to Section 20, Rule 57, Rules of Court). Only after such hearing may the corresponding judgment be rendered resolving the claim for damages (Visayan Surety, etc., v. Pascual, 85 Phil., 779; 47 Off. Gaz., 5075; Underwriters Insurance Co., v. Tan, 107 Phil., 911.)
In the present case, it is not denied that the respondent judge, after dismissing the petition for relief filed by petitioner, issued ex-parte the order of December 8, 1962 providing for the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution against the bond filed by petitioner. It held no hearing to determine whether the claimant had suffered damages by reason of the preliminary injunction issued against him, and to give an opportunity to the surety to be heard. Obviously, therefore, said order — and necessarily the writ of execution issued thereunder — are void.
WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is granted, with costs against respondent Guerrero. The preliminary injunction issued heretofore is hereby made final.
Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
