G.R. No. L-6671. July 27, 1954

Plaintiff-appellee in this case brought the original action, which
is an unlawful detainer, in the justice of the peace court of Tacloban,
Leyte. The Justice of the Peace Court issued an order for the issuance
of a writ of attachment, and to secure its dissolution, defendant
Apolinario del Pilar and the Luzon Surety Co., Inc., executed a bond,
which is as follows:

Civil Case No. 211
Defendant’s counter-bond for lifting
Writ of Attachment

ESTANISLAO DE LA. CRUZ, plaintiff vs. APOLINARIO DEL PILAR,
defendant

Whereas, the above-named plaintiff has filed an
action in the Justice of the Peace Court with an Order of writ of
attachment against the above-named defendant Apolinario del Pilar and prayed for an order of attachment, and the Court has ordered that a
writ of attachment be issued upon filing of a bond in the sum of P1
,000 Philippine currency.

Wherefore, we Apolinario del Pilar
as principal, and Luzon Surety Company, Incorporated, a corporation
duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
Philippines as surety in consideration of the above and of the lifting
of said attachment, hereby jointly and severally bind ourselves in the
sum of Pl,000 Philippine currency, under the condition that we and the
plaintiff will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the defendant
all damages which he may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the
same shall finally be adjudged to have been issued wrong- fully or
without sufficient cause.

LUZON SURETY CO., INC.,        
By (Sgd.) PELAGIO T. TAYAO        
Manager (Surety)        

(Sgd.) APOLINARIO DEL PILAR
                        Principal

Approved:

(Sgd.) EUGENIO N. BRILLO
                        Judge

 

Upon the filing of the bond, the writ of attachment was dissolved.
After trial, the justice of the peace sentenced the defendant to pay
Pl,521 to the plaintiff, with interest and costs. When the judgment
became final, said court issued an order for its execution against the
defendant and against the Luzon Surety Co., Inc. Thereupon, the latter
filed a motion, dated June 22, 1951, praying that the writ of execution
issued against it be quashed, on the ground that there was nothing in
the language or terms of the bond that it had executed under which it
could be held responsible for the amount of the judgment. The court
denied this motion, and appeal was made to the Court of First Instance,
which affirmed the order of the justice of the peace court. This
judgment of affirmance is the subject of the present appeal.

The Luzon Surety Co,, Inc., contends that from words of the bond
that it had filed, it and the plaintiff would pay all the costs which
may be adjudged “to the defendant.” It is further argued that the
plaintiff did not contest the words of the bond, but remained silent
with respect thereto at the time of its presentation,, and is
therefore, guilty of inexcusable neglect in allowing the approval of
the bond arid discharge of the attachment, being estopped to assert any
right under the bond and with no right to profit by his own neglect.

It must be noted that the title of the bond expresses clearly that
the same was for the purpose of lifting the writ of attachment. Upon
filling this bond, the writ of attachment issued by the justice of the
peace court was dissolved. Evidently, the proceedings that were
followed are those set forth in section 12, Rule 59, of the Rules of
Court. It does not appear from the record that any evidence was
submitted by either party, plaintiff or defendant surety either in the
justice of the peace court or in the Court of First Instance, why the
bond submitted was defective in its terms. As good faith is presumed,
we assume that the plaintiff must have failed to note the language or
terms in the body of the bond, or its faulty language as the surety’s
responsibility. We must also assume that the defendant surety also
acted in good faith, and therefore, was unaware of the flaw or defect
in the bond. The bond must, therefore, have been presented in the
mistaken belief that its terms and language correctly reflected the
title of the bond and the purpose for which it was being filed. The
mistake that both of the parties have fallen into is what is known in
law as mutual mistake, which authorizes the reformation of the
instrument under the provisions of section 22, Rule 123, of the Rules
of Court. (Government of the P.I. vs. Philippine Sugar States
Development Co., 247, U.S. 385, 62 L. ed. 1177particle 1881, Civil Code
of the Philippines.) In any case, the surety is estopped from denying
that the purpose and intent of the bond was for the lifting of the
attachment; that would be allowing, it to enrich itself by its own bad
faith.

Having come to the conclusion that the title and purpose for which
the bond was issued, and not its mistaken language, should govern the
responsibilities of the parties thereto, We will now determine whether
the writ of execution could issue against the defendant surety. The
bond was filed evidently under the provisions of section 12 of Rule 59
of the Rules of Court, because it was filed by the defendant to secure
the lifting or discharge of the writ of attachment. Mutual mistake and
good faith having attended the drafting of the body of the bond, the
terms thereof should be declared, as we hereby declare the same to be
that the defendant and surety are jointly and severally liable for the
amount of the judgment, in accordance with the provisions of section 17
of Rule 59. With this modification of the bond declared and ordered,
the validity of the writ of execution ordered against the surety
becomes evident.

The appeal is, therefore, hereby dismissed, and the judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes. J. B. L., JJ., concur.