Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12125)
Facts:
The case of Luis G. Ablaza v. Amancio Sycip and Central Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-12125, November 23, 1960, was decided by the Supreme Court En Banc, Paredes, J., writing for the Court (Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Dizon, JJ., concurring).Plaintiff-appellee Luis G. Ablaza filed a replevin action in the Manila Municipal Court to recover an automobile in aid of a chattel-mortgage foreclosure against defendant Amancio Sycip, who, on September 22, 1953, filed a redelivery bond executed by himself and Central Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. (the surety). The bond obliged principal and surety jointly and severally in a stated sum for delivery if delivery were adjudged and for payment of whatever might be recovered against the defendant together with costs.
The Municipal Court rendered judgment for Ablaza. On appeal the trial court also rendered judgment for the plaintiff, ordering Sycip to surrender the automobile and awarding attorney’s fees and costs. An appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed on October 19, 1954, and the records were remanded to the trial court for entry of final judgment and execution. A writ of execution issued, the sheriff seized the automobile, and it was sold at public auction on April 16, 1955, for P381.00.
Long after final judgment and execution, on June 18, 1955, Ablaza moved in the trial court for recovery of damages from Sycip and the surety on the redelivery bond in the liquidated sum of P500.00 for deterioration of the automobile. Over defendants’ jurisdictional objection, the trial court, by order dated July 18, 1955, directed the defendants jointly and severally to pay P500.00 for deterioration and P300.00 for attorney’s fees, with collection directions. Motions for reconsideration were denie...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- After final judgment has been entered and executed, did the trial court retain jurisdiction to entertain and grant the plaintiff’s post-execution application for damages against the redelivery bond?
- If the court entertained the application, did the July 18, 1955 order materially modify the original judgment (and thus exceed the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)