Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc., and Dominador Cacpal
**Facts:**
– Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc. (respondent) filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against Varian Industrial Corporation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
– During the trial, Sycwin attached properties of Varian due to a supersedeas bond.
– To lift the attachment, Varian posted a counterbond of P1,400,000 through Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. (PBAC).
– The RTC ruled in favor of Sycwin on December 28, 1984, ordering:
1. Payment of P1,401,468.00 plus interest.
2. 5% of the principal as liquidated damages.
3. P30,000 as exemplary damages.
4. 15% of the principal as attorney’s fees.
5. Costs of suit.
– Varian appealed and Sycwin requested execution pending appeal, approved by the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).
– Varian’s properties were not delivered upon the writ of execution’s demand.
– Sycwin petitioned the IAC to enforce the counterbond against PBAC, which the IAC granted on September 12, 1985, leading PBAC to file this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
**Issues:**
1. Whether an order of execution pending appeal can be enforced against a counterbond posted to lift an attachment.
2. The necessity of a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari in this context.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Execution Pending Appeal on Counterbond:**
– The Court upheld that the counterbond under Section 5, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court secures “any judgment” for the attaching creditor.
– Section 17, Rule 57 specifies that the surety on the counterbond becomes liable if execution is unsatisfied, applying to judgments pending appeal.
– Applying the principle that courts should not distinguish where the law does not, the Court held the counterbond covers both final and non-final judgments.
– The Court referenced Towers Assurance Corporation v. Ororama Supermart, emphasizing that any unsatisfied execution—be it from a pending appeal or final judgment—can be charged against the counterbond, provided procedural conditions are met.
2. **Motion for Reconsideration:**
– Normally, a motion for reconsideration is required before certiorari, but the Court allowed it here due to urgent need.
– The Court acknowledged exceptions to the rule, such as where immediate relief is essential to prevent injustice or undue harm.
**Doctrine:**
1. **Liability on Counterbond:**
– A counterbond posted under Section 5, Rule 57, to lift attachment, is liable for any judgment meandering through various stages of litigation, including pending appeal.
– The execution until satisfied, then, binds the counterbond, irrespective of the judgment’s executory finality.
2. **Exceptions to Motion for Reconsideration Requirement:**
– In cases expressing urgency or significant immediate need, the general requirement for a motion for reconsideration before certiorari can be dispensed.
**Class Notes:**
– **Elements of Counterbond Liability:**
1. Issuance and non-satisfaction of execution against the principal debtor.
2. Demand upon the surety for payment.
3. Notice and summary hearing for the surety on its liability.
– **Rule 57, Sections 5, 12, 17:**
1. **Sec. 5**: Attachment and security via counterbond.
2. **Sec. 12**: Discharge of attachment with counterbond equivalent to property value.
3. **Sec. 17**: Liability on counterbond if execution unsatisfied.
– **Legal Maxim**: “Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemos” (“Where the law does not distinguish, we must not distinguish”).
**Historical Background:**
– This case contextualizes the procedural adherence and interpretive leeway wielded by courts in post-judgment and provisional remedy scenarios (e.g., attachments, counterbonds).
– Reflects the judiciary’s stance of ensuring enforcement mechanics are fair, agile to meet immediate needs, without circumventing statutory dictates.
– Radiates a balance between rigid adherence to procedural formalities and pragmatic dispensation when urgent justice administration necessitates.
Leave a Reply