LUZON SURETY CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. RAFAEL P. GUERRERO, SR., PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND HON. DEMETRIO VINSON IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST …

Before Us is a motion for
reconsideration filed by respondent Rafael P. Guerrero Sr. praying “that the
decision of this Honorable Court dated June 20, 1966, be reconsidered in the
sense that the lover court be ordered to receive the evidence and/or application
for damages of the respondent Rafael P. Guerrero against the petitioner Luzon
Surety Co. Inc., or in the alternative for the sake of Justice and equity to
modify the decision of June 20, 1966 exempting the respondent Rafael P. Guerrero
from costs”.

Our decision in this case
granting the writ of certiorari prayed for in the petition filed by Luzon Surety
Company Inc. is predicated upon the following considerations: that the bond
filed by petitioner was an injunction bond liable – up to the amount of P600.00
– for such damages as the party enjoined may suffer by reason of the writ of
preliminary injunction issued against him, should that writ be subsequently
declared to have been issued without sufficient cause; that to determine the
liability of the surety upon such bond, the aggrieved party must make a claim
for damages, and that the same should be set for hearing with previous notice to
both parties.

In the present case, the
respondent court, on October 29, 1962, not only dismissed the petition for
relief filed by the Navarro spouses, who were defendants in the ejectment case filed in the Municipal Court of Bacolod City, but also held the indemnity bond filed by
petitioner liable for such damages as respondent Guerrero might have suffered by
reason of the injunction. Then on December 8 of the same year, resolving an
ex-parte motion filed by Guerrero, said court issued
an order for the issuance of a writ of execution against the bond filed by
petitioner herein. Damages caused through the improvident issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction – as is well known – may not be recovered in a separate
action but must be claimed in the same proceeding where the injunction bond was
filed. In the case at bar, the allegations and prayer for relief contained in
the motion to dismiss filed by Guerrero on August 23, 1962 and in his ex-parte motion for execution dated December 6, 1962 (Annexes
“C” and “E” respectively, of the petition) comply substantially with the
requirement concerning the filing of a claim, but no hearing in connection
therewith was held before the writ of execution complained of was
issued.

IN CONSONANCE WITH THE
FOREGOING,
the motion for reconsideration is granted to the extent that the lower court is
directed to hold the required hearing in relation to such claim for damages and
afterwards proceed to determine the same. Without cost

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J. B. L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez
and Ruiz
Castro, JJ.,
concur.

Barrera, J., on leave.