Title
Bautista vs. Piguing
Case
G.R. No. L-10006
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1957
Consuelo purchased dinner sets from Lim under a conditional sale. Bautista attached the sets in a money claim. Lim sued for wrongful attachment; venue upheld in Quezon City.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-10006)

Facts:

  1. Purchase of Dinner Sets:
    Consuelo Vda. de Buencamino purchased 7 dinner sets (7 steel tables and 28 steel chairs) from Emilio E. Lim on January 16, 1954, under a conditional sale contract. The title to the property was to pass to the buyer only upon full payment of the purchase price. Default on two installments would render the entire remaining obligation due and demandable.

  2. Attachment of Property:
    On March 8, 1954, Dionisia Bautista filed a money claim against Consuelo Vda. de Buencamino in the Municipal Court of Quezon City (Civil Case No. 1250) and caused the attachment of personal properties, including the dinner sets. At the time, Consuelo had only paid P450 of the total purchase price.

  3. Third-Party Claim by Emilio E. Lim:
    Emilio E. Lim filed a third-party claim with the Sheriff of Quezon City, asserting ownership of the dinner sets. However, Dionisia Bautista posted a bond (Bond No. 1518) worth P1,712, issued by the First National Surety & Assurance Co., Inc., to cover potential damages to Lim.

  4. Recovery Action by Lim:
    Lim filed a recovery action (Civil Case No. 31901) in the Municipal Court of Manila against Consuelo Vda. de Buencamino, which resulted in a judgment in his favor. However, the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied because the property had already been sold at public auction to Dionisia Bautista on July 16, 1954.

  5. Damages Claim by Lim:
    Lim filed a damages claim (Civil Case No. 1578) in the Municipal Court of Quezon City against Dionisia Bautista, the Sheriff of Quezon City, and the First National Surety & Assurance Co., Inc., seeking P1,712 for the wrongful attachment and sale of his property.

  6. Cross-Claim by Surety Company:
    The First National Surety & Assurance Co., Inc., filed a cross-claim against Dionisia Bautista and a third-party complaint against Filemon Cajator, who had executed a counterbond indemnifying the surety for any damages.

  7. Motions to Dismiss:
    Dionisia Bautista, the Sheriff of Quezon City, and Filemon Cajator filed motions to dismiss, arguing improper venue and lack of jurisdiction. The Municipal Court of Quezon City denied the motions, ruling that the action for damages was properly filed in Quezon City.

  8. Petition for Prohibition:
    The defendants filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Quezon City to stop the trial of Civil Case No. 1578. The Court of First Instance affirmed the Municipal Court's ruling but held that the counterbond dispute involving Filemon Cajator should be resolved in Manila.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Nature of the Action:
    The action was for damages arising from the wrongful attachment of Lim's property, not for the enforcement of the indemnity bond. Therefore, the terms of the bond did not govern the venue or jurisdiction of the case.

  2. Venue Determination:
    Under Section 2(c) of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, when an action is not based on a written contract, it should be filed in the municipality where the defendant resides. Since the Sheriff of Quezon City was a defendant and resided in Quezon City, the venue was proper.

  3. Third-Party Claims and Counterbonds:
    The Court clarified that the indemnity bond's terms were binding only on the principal (Dionisia Bautista) and the surety (First National Surety & Assurance Co., Inc.), not on third parties like Emilio E. Lim. The counterbond dispute involving Filemon Cajator, however, was subject to the venue specified in the counterbond agreement.

  4. Jurisdiction:
    The Municipal Court of Quezon City had jurisdiction over the damages claim because the action was properly filed in Quezon City, and the Sheriff of Quezon City was a resident defendant.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.