G.R. No. 19283. January 26, 1923

This is an action to recover jointly and severally from the principal and the
surety upon a replevin re-delivery bond, the sum of P1,919 by way of damages for
the deterioration of the thing replevied during the time it remained in
possession of the defendant by virtue of the bond.

It appears from the record that on January 19, 1920, the defendant Miguel
Bona bought from the plaintiff an automobile for the sum of P5,617.83 payable in
twenty-three monthly installments, and that he executed and delivered to
plaintiff a promissory note for that sum; that to guarantee the payment of said
promissory note the said defendant also gave a chattle mortgage on the
automobile; that on account of the failure of the defendant to pay the tenth and
subsequent installments of said promissory note, the chattel mortgage was
foreclosed and the sheriff of Manila, by virtue of the foreclosure, fixed March
7, 1921, as the date for the public sale of the automobile; that the defendant
Bona refused to deliver the automobile to the sheriff of Manila or to the
plaintiff herein, which refusal caused the plaintiff to institute replevin
proceedings against him, the case being numbered civil case No. 19649 of the
Court of First Instance of Manila; that in said civil case No. 19649 the
defendant Bona, in order to retain possession of the automobile, filed a
re-delivery bond in the sum of P4,000, which bond was subscribed by the other
defendant, the Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., by which both defendants bound
themselves jointly and severally to deliver said automobile to the plaintiff if
such delivery were adjudged, and for the payment of such sum to the plaintiff as
might be recovered against the defendant in the replevin case, together with the
costs of action.

It further appears that after trial in said civil case No. 19649, the Court
of First Instance on September 29, 1921, rendered a judgment ordering the
defendant Bona to deliver the automobile in question to the plaintiff herein and
to pay the costs of the action, and that after said judgment became final, the
court, on November 1, 1921, issued an order requiring the sheriff of Manila to
compel said defendant to deliver the automobile to the plaintiff, pursuant to
which order the latter obtained possession of the automobile on November 1,
1921. On November 14, 1921, it was sold by the sheriff at public auction under
the chattel mortgage and at which sale it was bid in by the plaintiff for the
sum of P147.

The defendant Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., was not made a party in said civil
case No. 19649 and it will be noted that there was no alternative judgment for
damages.

On November 15, 1921, immediately after the sheriff’s sale, the present
action was brought upon the re-delivery bond, the plaintiff seeking to recover
damages for the deterioration of the automobile during the period between March
15, 1921, the date upon which it was redelivered to Bona, and November 1, 1921,
the date upon which Bona delivered it to the sheriff under the judgment in civil
case No. 19649. The plaintiff places the amount of such damages at P1,853, the
difference between P2,000, the alleged value of the automobile on March 15,
1921, and P147, the price obtained at the sheriff’s sale in November of the same
year.

After trial, the Court of First Instance held that the deterioration was not
covered by the bond, and that no damages had been proven, and rendered judgment
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of only P66,
the amount of the costs adjudged against the defendant Bona in civil case No.
19649. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals and maintains that the trial
court erred (1) in holding that the plaintiff is not secured by the re-delivery
bond furnished in civil case No. 19649 of the Court of First Instance of Manila
by Miguel Bona and Union Guarantee Co., Ltd., defendants in this case, against
deterioration of the automobile; (2) in holding that, there being no money
judgment against Miguel Bona in said civil case No. 19649, there is no evidence
of any liability under the bond for which judgment may be rendered against
defendants in this case except that plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs
adjudged against defendant Miguel Bona in said civil case No. 19649, amounting
to P66; and (3) in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

We do not think the second assignment is well taken and agree with the trial
court that the evidence as to the extent of the deterioration of the automobile
is insufficient. To show its value at the time of its delivery to the sheriff on
November 1st, the plaintiff proved that it brought only P147 at the sale on
November 14th. The defendant Bona testified, however, that the automobile at the
time of its re-delivery to the plaintiff was worth about P3,500, and, as against
this, there is not a word in the record to show that the true value at that time
was only P147. Moreover, the automobile was standing outside exposed to the
weather during the two weeks from November 1st to November 14th and this may
have affected its appearance and sales-value considerably; the defendants
cannot, of course, be held liable for its deterioration during that period.

In regard to the first assignment of error, the trial court undoubtedly erred
in holding that the re-delivery bond, assuming that it was in conformity with
section 267 of the Code of Civil Procedure, did not cover deterioration of the
automobile during the period it remained in possession of the defendant Bona by
virtue of the bond. The weight of authority is to the effect that though a
replevin re-delivery bond does not in terms require the property to be returned
in substantially as good a condition as when taken, such an obligation is always
implied by law. (Hallidie Machinery Co. vs. Whidbey Island Sand &
Gravel Co., 73 Wash., 403; Fair vs. Citizens’ State Bank of Arlington, 69
Kan., 353; Maguire vs. Pan-American Amusement Co., 205 Mass., 64.)

But upon the facts in this case, the error is unimportant. This court has
already held in the case of Pascua vs. Sideco (24 Phil., 26), that “A
separate action for the recovery of damages arising out of a replevin suit may
not be had, in view of section 272 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by
section 17 of Act No. 1627, the object being to determine finally all the
matters growing out of the controversy in the replevin action and thus prevent a
multiplicity of suits.”

Circumstances might possibly arise in connection with a replevin suit which
might render a separate action for damages proper, but no such circumstances
exist in the present case, and the case of Pascua vs. Sideco is therefore
squarely in point. In the instant case it may also be noted that the plaintiff
accepted delivery of the automobile apparently without objection, and that he
caused it to be sold and received the proceeds of the sale. In these
circumstances, it may well be held that the delivery of the automobile to him
was complete, the conditions of the bond fulfilled, and the surety thereby
released from liability.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.
So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Johns,
and Romualdez, JJ., concur.