G.R. No. L-19423 - JANUARY 1963 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-19423January 31, 1963 People's Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Crisanto Aragon, et al. G.R. No. L-18982January 31, 1963 People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto Soria G.R. No. L-18941January 31, 1963 Gertrudes Mata, et al. vs. Rita Legarda, Inc. G.R. No. L-18879January 31, 1963 Lope Damasco vs. Abundio Z. Arrieta, et al. G.R. No. L-18746January 31, 1963 People of the Philippines vs. Frederick G. Weber G.R. No. L-18744January 31, 1963 Ofelia de Grearte, et al. vs. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd. G.R. No. L-18743January 31, 1963 Ofelia de Grearte, et al. vs. Tabacalera Insurance, Company G.R. No. L-18742January 31, 1963 Ofelia de Grearte, et al. vs. London Assurance G.R. No. L-18704January 31, 1963 Oceanic Air Products, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-18692January 31, 1963 Manuel B. Ruiz vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-18639January 31, 1963 Javier Security Special Watchman Agency, et al. vs. Shell Craft & Button Corp. G.R. Nos. L-18601-2January 31, 1963 People of the Philippines vs. Lualhati S. Macandog G.R. No. L-18518January 31, 1963 People of the Philippines vs. Federico Tagaro, et al. G.R. No. L-18515January 31, 1963 Geronimo E. Caparas vs. Domingo C. Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-18480January 31, 1963 Leopoldo Salcedo vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-18389January 31, 1963 Manila Railroad Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-18360January 31, 1963 Tatalon Barrio Council, et al. vs. Chief Accountant, et al. G.R. No. L-18290January 31, 1963 City of Bacolod vs. Leandro Gruet G.R. No. L-18240January 31, 1963 Sofronio C. Quimson, et al. vs. Pastor L. de Guzman, et al. G.R. No. L-18184January 31, 1963 Gaudencio Vera, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al. G.R. No. L-18178January 31, 1963 Register of Deeds of Iloilo vs. C. N. Hodges G.R. No. L-18129January 31, 1963 C. N. Hodges vs. Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo, et al. G.R. No. L-18096January 31, 1963 Maria Abon, et al. vs. Amparo E. Pablo, et al. G.R. No. L-17878January 31, 1963 American Steamship Agencies, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-17837January 31, 1963 Oriental Kapok Industries vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-17804January 31, 1963 National Marketing Corp., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-17625January 31, 1963 Insular Lumber Co. vs. Social Security System G.R. No. L-17085January 31, 1963 Luzon Brokerage Co. vs. Luzon Labor Union G.R. No. L-16884January 31, 1963 National Mines and Allied Workers' Union vs. Melquiades G. Ilao, et al. G.R. No. L-16827January 31, 1963 J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Jose Aguirre G.R. No. L-16749January 31, 1963 Testate Estate of Edward E. Christensen Adolfo C. Aznar vs. Helen Christensen Garcia G.R. No. L-16525January 31, 1963 Joseph Reich vs. Edmund Schwesinger, et al. G.R. No. L-16489January 31, 1963 People of the Philippines vs. Raul Basbanio, et al. G.R. No. L-16435January 31, 1963 Diosdado Espinosa vs. Nicasio A. Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-16417January 31, 1963 P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-16396January 31, 1963 Heirs of Basilisa Justiva, et al. vs. Jesus Gustilo, et al. G.R. No. L-16257January 31, 1963 Capitol Subdivision, Inc. vs. Province of Negros Occidental G.R. No. L-15948January 31, 1963 Pedro P. Rivera vs. Carlos P. Maclang G.R. No. L-15754January 31, 1963 North Camarines Lumber Co., Inc. vs. Metropolitan Insurance Co. G.R. No. L-15656January 31, 1963 Associated Insurance & Surety Company, Inc. vs. Wellington Chua, et al. G.R. No. L-15484January 31, 1963 Republic vs. Ricardo Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-15467January 31, 1963 Jesus Lancita, et al. vs. Gonzalo Magbanua, et al. G.R. No. L-15151January 31, 1963 Edmundo Gracella vs. El Colegio del Hospicio de San Jose, Inc. G.R. No. L-14801January 31, 1963 Filomena Silva vs. Domingo M. Cabangon, et al. G.R. No. L-14676January 31, 1963 Candida Villaluz, et al. vs. Juan Neme, et al. G.R. No. L-14653January 31, 1963 In re: Ricardo Santiago Ricardo Santiago vs. Commissioner of Immigration G.R. No. L-14311January 31, 1963 Manila Sanitarium & Hospital vs. Fausto Gabuco, et al. G.R. No. L-13873January 31, 1963 General Insurance and Surety Corp. vs. Republic of the Phil., et al. G.R. No. L-19823January 12, 1963 Ruperto Advincula, et al. vs. Commission on Appointments, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People's Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Crisanto Aragon, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto Soria Gertrudes Mata, et al. vs. Rita Legarda, Inc. Lope Damasco vs. Abundio Z. Arrieta, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Frederick G. Weber Ofelia de Grearte, et al. vs. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd. Ofelia de Grearte, et al. vs. Tabacalera Insurance, Company Ofelia de Grearte, et al. vs. London Assurance Oceanic Air Products, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Manuel B. Ruiz vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., et al. Javier Security Special Watchman Agency, et al. vs. Shell Craft & Button Corp. People of the Philippines vs. Lualhati S. Macandog People of the Philippines vs. Federico Tagaro, et al. Geronimo E. Caparas vs. Domingo C. Gonzales, et al. Leopoldo Salcedo vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Manila Railroad Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Tatalon Barrio Council, et al. vs. Chief Accountant, et al. City of Bacolod vs. Leandro Gruet Sofronio C. Quimson, et al. vs. Pastor L. de Guzman, et al. Gaudencio Vera, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al. Register of Deeds of Iloilo vs. C. N. Hodges C. N. Hodges vs. Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo, et al. Maria Abon, et al. vs. Amparo E. Pablo, et al. American Steamship Agencies, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Oriental Kapok Industries vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue National Marketing Corp., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Insular Lumber Co. vs. Social Security System Luzon Brokerage Co. vs. Luzon Labor Union National Mines and Allied Workers' Union vs. Melquiades G. Ilao, et al. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Jose Aguirre Testate Estate of Edward E. Christensen Adolfo C. Aznar vs. Helen Christensen Garcia Joseph Reich vs. Edmund Schwesinger, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Raul Basbanio, et al. Diosdado Espinosa vs. Nicasio A. Yatco, et al. P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Heirs of Basilisa Justiva, et al. vs. Jesus Gustilo, et al. Capitol Subdivision, Inc. vs. Province of Negros Occidental Pedro P. Rivera vs. Carlos P. Maclang North Camarines Lumber Co., Inc. vs. Metropolitan Insurance Co. Associated Insurance & Surety Company, Inc. vs. Wellington Chua, et al. Republic vs. Ricardo Ramos, et al. Jesus Lancita, et al. vs. Gonzalo Magbanua, et al. Edmundo Gracella vs. El Colegio del Hospicio de San Jose, Inc. Filomena Silva vs. Domingo M. Cabangon, et al. Candida Villaluz, et al. vs. Juan Neme, et al. In re: Ricardo Santiago Ricardo Santiago vs. Commissioner of Immigration Manila Sanitarium & Hospital vs. Fausto Gabuco, et al. General Insurance and Surety Corp. vs. Republic of the Phil., et al. Ruperto Advincula, et al. vs. Commission on Appointments, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-19423 January 31, 1963
PEOPLE'S SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,petitioner,
vs.
HON. CRISANTO ARAGON, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila, The Sheriff of Manila and EULOGIO P. FLORES,respondents.
Bienvinido R. Benitez for petitioner.
San Juan, Africa & Benedicto for respondent.
REGALA,J.:
This is a petition forcertiorarito annul two orders of respondent Judge directing execution of petitioner's bond in a suit for replevin.
The following facts are not disputed. Alfredo Baura filed a complaint for the recovery of a car against Eulogio P. Flores in the Municipal Court of Manila where the same was docketed as Civil Case No. 855519. To secure immediate possession of the car, Baura filed a bond subscribed by the petitioner People's Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. "to answer for the prosecution of the action, the return of the property to the defendant if the return thereof should be adjudged, and for the payment to him of such sums as may in the cause be recovered against the plaintiff, and the costs of the action."
The respondent Judge issued a warrant for the seizure of the car but the warrant was not carried out in view of the request of plaintiff's counsel to hold service of the same in abeyance. Sixty days having elapsed without any instruction from either the plaintiff or his counsel, the sheriff returned the writ to the court unsatisfied.
When the case was called for hearing on April 18, 1961, neither plaintiff Baura nor his counsel showed up, prompting defendant Flores to file a motion to dismiss with a counterclaim against Baura for P2,000.00 for "embarrassment, mental anxiety and torture." A copy of the motion was served on plaintiff Baura; none was given to the surety.
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts.1äwphï1.ñët
No action was taken on the motion to dismiss. Instead the court reset the case for hearing for October 28, 1961. Again, despite due notice, neither Baura nor his lawyer appeared. The court, therefore, tried the case and rendered a decision, dismissing the complaint and ordering Baura to pay defendant Flores the sum of P2,000.00 as damages.
When the decision became final, Flores moved for execution of the bond. In an order dated December 16, 1961, the respondent Judge granted the motion. Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the respondent Judge in an order dated January 27, 1962. In view thereof, the petitioner contended that execution of its bond was improper because of the following:
1. No application for damages had been made by defendant before the trial or before the entry of judgment;
2. No notice of application for damages was given to it; and
3. There was no judgment against its bond.
Section 10, Rule 62, of the Rules of Court provides:
The amount, if any to be awarded to either party upon any bond filed by the other in accordance with the provision of this rule, shall be claimed, ascertained, and granted under the same procedure as prescribed in section 20 of Rule 59.
Section 20 of Rule 59 states:
If the judgment on the action be in favor of the defendant, he may recover, upon the bond given by the plaintiff, damages resulting from the attachment. Such damages may be awarded only upon application and after hearing, and shall be included in the final judgment. The application must be filed before the trial or, in the discretion of the court, before the entry of final judgment, with due notice to the plaintiff and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof ....
Under the above-quoted provisions, in order to recover on a replevin bond, the following requisites must be observed:
1. There must be an application showing the right to damages and the amount thereof;
2. Notice of the application for damages must be given to the plaintiff and his surety;.
3. There must be a hearing in case the application is opposed; and
4. Any award for damages must be included in the judgment of the court.
In this case, no application for damages arising out of any wrongful seizure of defendant's property was ever filed by defendant Flores. While it is true that he filed a motion to dismiss with a counterclaim for damages, yet the damages claimed were those caused by plaintiff's alleged bad faith in filing his complaint. Even the decision of the respondent court clearly states that:
Considering the reasons stated in Plaintiff's counsel's motion and the continuedfailure of Plaintiffto prosecutehis casedespite due notice; and more significant, the obvious consequentialdamages and harassment suffered by the defendant;
Judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint, without costs; and on the counterclaim, the Plaintiff is hereby condemned to pay the defendant the sum of P2,000.00 as and for damages. (Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, defendant Flores can claim no damages arising from loss of possession of his car because, as already stated the writ of replevin was never carried out by the sheriff. In order to recover damages against the Surety Company, it was not shown that defendant Flores suffered damages as a result of the deprivation of possession of his car. (Aguasin v. Velasquez, 88 Phil. 357). Defendant Flores' failure to file such an application for damages before the entry of final judgment is a bar to recovery on the bond and relieves the surety of its obligation under it. (Visayan Surety and Insurance Corp. v. Pascual, 85 Phil. 779).
Even assuming that defendant's counterclaim can be considered a claim for damages under the bond, still We hold that execution of the bond is improper because no notice of the same was given to the surety. As this Court held inAguasin v. Velasquez, 88 Phil. 357—
If the surety is to be bound by his undertaking, it is essential ... that the damages be awarded upon application and after proper hearing and included in the final judgment. As a corollary to these requirements, due notice to the plaintiff and his surety setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the amount thereof under the bond is indispensable. This has to be so if the surety is not to be condemned or made to pay without due process of law. It is to be kept in mind that the surety in this case was not a party to the action and had no notice or intervention in the trial. It seems elementary that before being condemned to pay, it was the elementary right of the surety to be heard and to be informed that the party seeking indemnity would hold it liable and was going to prove the grounds and extent of its liability.
WHEREFORE, the orders of December 16, 1961 and January 27, 1962 of the respondent court are hereby set aside, with costs against respondent Eulogio P. Flores.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.