G.R. No. L-9343 - DECEMBER 1959 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-9343December 29, 1959 Manila Surety and Fidelity Company, Inc. vs. Valentin R. Lim G.R. No. L-13926December 29, 1959 In Re: Felisa F. Harris Anne H. Moll vs. Rose Harris, et al. G.R. No. L-13547December 29, 1959 Joaquin T. Ortega vs. Bauang Farmers Cooperative Marketing Association G.R. No. L-13433December 29, 1959 Fortunato F. Halili vs. Juan V. Aldea G.R. No. L-13361December 29, 1959 Rosario Grey vda. de Albar, et al. vs. Josefa Fabie de Carandang G.R. No. L-13354December 29, 1959 Apolinario dela Cruz, et al. vs. City Fiscal, et al. G.R. No. L-13273December 29, 1959 Edilio L. Baluyot vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-13126December 29, 1959 Federico de los Angeles, et al. vs. Sotero Cabahug, et al. G.R. No. L-13080December 29, 1959 Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Times Transportation Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-13067December 29, 1959 Commissioner of Customs vs. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-13065December 29, 1959 Lino Sales, et al. vs. Jose Santos, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-13025December 29, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Teodulo Rogsdo, et al. G.R. No. L-12793December 29, 1959 Medina Brothers & Company vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. G.R. No. L-12357December 29, 1959 National Marketing Corporation vs. Jose G. de Castro G.R. No. L-12277December 29, 1959 Benito Orit vs. Baldrogan Company, Ltd. G.R. No. L-12231December 29, 1959 Ang Liong vs. Commissioner of Immigration G.R. No. L-11968December 29, 1959 Doroteo Onofre, et al. vs. Pastor P. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-11895December 29, 1959 In Re: Jesus J. Go Jesus J. Go vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-10994 and L-11012December 29, 1959 Golay-Buchel and Cie vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-14022December 28, 1959 In Re: Yu Kheng Chiau Yu Kheng Chiau vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-13010December 28, 1959 Juanito N. Ferrer vs. Alfonso Tabora, et al. G.R. No. L-12408December 28, 1959 Lee Cho vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-13272December 26, 1959 Trinidad Ocampo-Cañiza vs. Felix Martinez, et al. G.R. No. L-13932December 24, 1959 Jose V. de los Santos, et al. vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-13920December 24, 1959 Ildefonso D. Yap, et al. vs. Daniel M. M. Salcedo G.R. No. L-12207December 24, 1959 Juan Palacios vs. Maria Catimbang Palacios G.R. No. L-11525December 24, 1959 In Re: Anandram Valiram Dargani Anandram Valiram Dargani vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-14190December 23, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Andrecito Bulalake, et al. G.R. No. L-13715December 23, 1959 Felix V. Valencia vs. Cebu Portland Cement Company, et al. G.R. No. L-13017December 23, 1959 In Re: Tak Ng Tak Ng vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-12991December 23, 1959 F. F. Hamlin vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-12948December 23, 1959 Marcelo Vital vs. Pastor Magtoto, et al. G.R. No. L-12764December 23, 1959 Emilio Cano, et al. vs. Domingo M. Cabangon, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-12707December 23, 1959 Demetrio Bunayog vs. Anacleta Tunas, et al. G.R. No. L-12088December 23, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Moro Sumaguina Macarandang G.R. No. L-11855December 23, 1959 Lee Suan Ay, et al. vs. Emilio Galang, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-13303December 10, 1959 Ang Bun Phek vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-12950December 9, 1959 Benjamin Celestial, et al. vs. Southern Mindadnao Experimental Station, et al. G.R. No. L-12629December 9, 1959 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Araquel The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Manila Surety and Fidelity Company, Inc. vs. Valentin R. Lim In Re: Felisa F. Harris Anne H. Moll vs. Rose Harris, et al. Joaquin T. Ortega vs. Bauang Farmers Cooperative Marketing Association Fortunato F. Halili vs. Juan V. Aldea Rosario Grey vda. de Albar, et al. vs. Josefa Fabie de Carandang Apolinario dela Cruz, et al. vs. City Fiscal, et al. Edilio L. Baluyot vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Federico de los Angeles, et al. vs. Sotero Cabahug, et al. Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Times Transportation Co., Inc. Commissioner of Customs vs. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., et al. Lino Sales, et al. vs. Jose Santos, etc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Teodulo Rogsdo, et al. Medina Brothers & Company vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. National Marketing Corporation vs. Jose G. de Castro Benito Orit vs. Baldrogan Company, Ltd. Ang Liong vs. Commissioner of Immigration Doroteo Onofre, et al. vs. Pastor P. Reyes, et al. In Re: Jesus J. Go Jesus J. Go vs. Republic of the Philippines Golay-Buchel and Cie vs. Commissioner of Customs In Re: Yu Kheng Chiau Yu Kheng Chiau vs. Republic of the Philippines Juanito N. Ferrer vs. Alfonso Tabora, et al. Lee Cho vs. Republic of the Philippines Trinidad Ocampo-Cañiza vs. Felix Martinez, et al. Jose V. de los Santos, et al. vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. Ildefonso D. Yap, et al. vs. Daniel M. M. Salcedo Juan Palacios vs. Maria Catimbang Palacios In Re: Anandram Valiram Dargani Anandram Valiram Dargani vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Andrecito Bulalake, et al. Felix V. Valencia vs. Cebu Portland Cement Company, et al. In Re: Tak Ng Tak Ng vs. Republic of the Philippines F. F. Hamlin vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Marcelo Vital vs. Pastor Magtoto, et al. Emilio Cano, et al. vs. Domingo M. Cabangon, etc., et al. Demetrio Bunayog vs. Anacleta Tunas, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Moro Sumaguina Macarandang Lee Suan Ay, et al. vs. Emilio Galang, etc., et al. Ang Bun Phek vs. Republic of the Philippines Benjamin Celestial, et al. vs. Southern Mindadnao Experimental Station, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Araquel The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-9343           December 29, 1959

MANILA SURETY and FIDELITY CO., INC.,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
VALENTIN R. LIM,defendant-appellant.

De Santos, Herrera and Delfino for appellee.
Carlos, Laurea, Fernando and Padilla for appellant.

ENDENCIA,J.:

This is an appeal from a decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering the defendant Valentin R. Lim to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1000 with legal interest from July 26, 1951, with costs. The appeal is predicated on the proposition that the lower court erred:

The present case is an offset of the decision rendered by Us on December 29, 1949 in cases G.R. Nos. L-2717, 2718 and 2767*, where in we declared that damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a writ or preliminary injunction must be claimed, ascertained and awarded in the final judgment, and that the damages awarded therein in favor of defendant Valentin R. Lim by reason of the issuance of the preliminary injunction in civil cases Nos. 487 and 7674 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, were granted in violation of Section 9 of Rule 60 in connection with Section 20 of Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, for said damages were not included in the decision and were awarded long time after it became final and executory.

The factual background of the present case is as follows: On February 26, 1946, in civil case No. 32 of the Justice of the Peace Court of Pasay, Valentin R. Lim obtained a judgment against Irineo Facundo, "ordering the latter to vacate the premises described in the complaint and to pay the plaintiff a monthly rental of P100 from February 18, 1955 until the defendant vacate the premises and to pay the costs." Ireneo Facundo did not appeal from the decision but instead caused the filing of a special civil action forcertiorariand prohibition (Case No. 7674) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, entitled Ireneo Facundo, petitioner, vs. Jose M. Santos, ex-Justice of the Peace of Pasay, Ricardo C. Robles, as Justice of the Peace of Pasay, Valentin R. Lim, respondents, wherein a writ of preliminary injunction was issued upon the filing by Facundo of a in the sum of P1000, which bond was posted by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. OnJune 21, 1946, this case was a dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Rizal and the dismissal was subsequent affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court onDecember 17, 1946.

On July 29, 1948, Valentin R. Lim filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in said case No. 7694, a motion for the determination of damages sustained by him fore uncollected rentals due to the issuance of the above-mentioned writ of preliminary injunction in said case. Despite the fact that the decision in that case — wherein no damages were awarded to appellant Lim — had already become final two years more or less from the date of September 30, 1948, allowed appellant to prove said damages, awarded them and ordered the confiscation of the bond posted by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. and directed the latter to pay appellant Lim the sum of P1000, which order gave rise to a petition for certiorari filed and docketed in this Court as G.R. No.
L-2718.

On April 9, 1948, Irineo Facundo filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a special civil action for prohibition against Lucio M. Tinagco as municipal Judge of Rizal City, and Valentin R. Lim, wherein he prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued upon filing a bond of P1000 to prevent Judge Tinagco from issuing an alias writ of execution in civil case No. 32 of his court. Upon Facundo's filing of the bond, which was posted by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., the court issued the corresponding preliminary injunction. On April 24, 1948, the court dismissed this case and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction; hence on July 29, 1948, appellant filed a petition with said court asking for damages sustained by him for failure to collect the rentals because of the issuance of the aforementioned preliminary injunction; and despite the fact that the decision in civil case No. 487 — wherein no damages were awarded for the issuance of said preliminary injunction — had become final on May 9, 1948, the Court of First Instance of Rizal allowed the damages sought for, ordered the confiscation of the bond posted by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., and directed the latter to pay to Lim the full value of said Court, docketed as G.R. No. L-2712.

Thereafter, or to be more exact, on January 24, 1949, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, issued a writ of execution in the aforementioned cases Nos. 487 and 7674, directing the Sheriff of Manila to require the Manila Surety 7 Fidelity Co., Inc. to pay to appellant Valentin R. Lim the sum of P1000 is satisfaction of its liability under the preliminary injunction bond, and in compliance with the writ of execution, the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., herein appellee, delivered to the Sheriff of Manila the sum of P1,105.01 in full satisfaction of the writ of execution and the fees of the Sheriff, of which amount the sum of P1000 was delivered by the Sheriff to appellant Valentin R. Lim.

On December 29, 1949, we declared that the writs of execution issued in civil cases Nos. 487 and 7674 of the Court of First Instance were null and void, and onJanuary 21, 1951, the herein plaintiff-appellee demanded from the defendant-appellant the immediate reimbursement of the payment it made in compliance with said writs, but the herein defendant-appellant refused to re turn the above-mentioned amount of P1,105.01, hence plaintiff-appellee initiated the present action.

The main contention of defendant-appellant is: that plaintiff-appellee has paid voluntarily its natural obligation and therefore is precluded from recovering that which was delivered to defendant-appellant, and that the requisites ofsolutio indebtiwhich is the only basis for the return of the amount paid do not exist in the present case. Appellant invokes the following provisions of the Civil Code:

Upon careful examination of the foregoing provisions of law and undisputed facts of the case, we find appellants contention to be untenable, for the payment made by the herein plaintiff-appellee to defendant-appellant was not voluntary, it was thru a coercive process of the writ of execution issued at the instant and insistence of the defendant-appellant. Certainly, were it not for said writ of execution, plaintiff-appellee would not have paid to defendant-appellant the amount in question. It should be noted that at the time the said writ of execution was issued, the right of defendant-appellant to damages caused unto him by reason of his inability to collect the rents of the property involved in civil cases Nos. 487 and 7674, was still pending determination by the Supreme Court, and had defendant-appellant waited for the final decision of the Supreme Court on said damages, surely he would not have caused the issuance of the writ of execution in said civil cases and thus compel plaintiff-appellee to pay to him the aforementioned sum of P1,105.01.lawphi1.net

It is contended be defendant-appellant that there is not justification for ordering the return of the amount n question as the court below did, for in the present case, the requisites ofsolutio indebtido not exist. But the instant case does not fall under the provisions of Article 2154; it is based on the theory that the judgment upon which the plaintiff-appellee made payment was declared null and void and consequently the execution of said judgment and the payment made thereunder were also null and void. It is quite a settled rule that damages caused by the issuance of a preliminary injunction should be adjudicated in the final judgment rendered in the case in which the injunction was issued. In civil cases Nos. 487 and 7674 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the award of damages was done after the decision on the merit of said cases became final, so said award was illegal, for which no writ of execution could be validly issued. Evidently, the order of September 30, 1949 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal whereby it awarded damages and ordered the forfeiture and execution of plaintiff's bond in each of said two cases, is null and void, it having been issued in violation of the Rules of Court.

Defendant-appellant lastly raises the question of jurisdiction of the court below, claiming that the present action should have been filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal and citing as follows:

Appellant's contention is untenable. The present action is for a sum of money and all the parties involved are residents of the City of Manila as averred in paragraph 1 of the complaint. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, civil actions like the one in question may be commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.

Wherefore, finding no error in the decision appealed from the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Guttierrez David, JJ., concur.

Footnotes