Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12271)
Facts:
The case of Joseph Abelow vs. Jose de la Riva, et al. (G.R. No. L-12271) was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on January 31, 1959. The plaintiff, Joseph Abelow, initiated an action for replevin in the Manila Court of First Instance in October 1950 against defendants Jose de la Riva and Gonzalo G. Padua, seeking the recovery of certain personal properties along with damages. To facilitate the seizure of the properties, Abelow submitted an affidavit and a "bond for manual delivery of personal property," which was underwritten by Luzon Surety Co., Inc. The court granted an order for the seizure and delivery of the properties to Abelow, which was executed by the sheriff. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to include San Ildefonso Lumber Co. as an additional defendant, as they were the actual holders of the personal property. An amended bond was also submitted, again signed by Luzon Surety. However, about a month later, a counter-bond was submitted,...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12271)
Facts:
1. Initiation of the Case:
In October 1950, Joseph Abelow filed a replevin action in the Manila Court of First Instance against Jose de la Riva and Gonzalo G. Padua to recover certain personal properties and claim damages. The plaintiff submitted the required affidavit and a "bond for manual delivery of personal property" under Rule 62, which was subscribed by Luzon Surety Co., Inc.
2. Seizure and Return of Properties:
The court issued an order for the seizure and delivery of the properties to Abelow. The complaint was later amended to include San Ildefonso Lumber Co. as an additional defendant, as it was holding the properties. An amended bond was also submitted, signed by Luzon Surety. However, about a month later, the order of seizure was lifted after the defendants submitted a counter-bond, and the sheriff returned the properties.
3. Judgment and Appeal:
The replevin case proceeded to trial, and the court absolved the defendants. Abelow was ordered to pay San Ildefonso Lumber Co. P12,986.00 for damages caused by the seizure, plus P1,500.00 as attorney’s fees. Abelow appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
4. Execution and Alias Writ:
After the record was remanded to the lower court, a writ of execution was issued against Abelow but was returned unsatisfied, as no leviable properties were found. The defendants then sought an alias writ of execution against Luzon Surety Co., Inc., the surety that had subscribed the replevin bond.
5. Surety’s Objection:
Luzon Surety objected, arguing that:
- The final judgment contained no directive against it.
- It had no notice of the claim against Abelow.
- The court had lost jurisdiction to amend the judgment to include an order against the surety.
- Under Rule 62, the defendants were barred from recovery due to their failure to submit a claim or notify the surety before the judgment became final.
Despite these objections, the Manila court ordered execution against Luzon Surety, prompting the surety to appeal.
Issue:
- Whether the court erred in issuing an alias writ of execution against Luzon Surety Co., Inc., despite the final judgment not containing any directive against the surety.
- Whether the defendants’ failure to notify the surety or make a claim against it before the judgment became final bars recovery from the surety.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)