G.R. No. 212025 - Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. vs. Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation

On March 26, 1996, Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. (petitioner), represented by VP Max L.F. Ying and Treasurer Alfiero R. Orden, entered into a five‐month contract with Multi‐Rich Builders (a sole proprietorship) for construction of a garment factory in CPEZA.
The contract contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).

On January 26, 2004, Win Multi‐Rich Builders, Inc. (successor to Multi‐Rich) sued petitioner and Ying for sum of money and damages, securing an RTC writ of preliminary attachment for ₱8,634,448.20 on February 2, 2004, and the petitioner posted a bank check bond for that amount.
Petitioner moved to discharge the attachment and invoked arbitration jurisdiction; RTC denied the motion (April 12, 2004). Petitioner filed answer with compulsory counterclaim, seeking damages and lifting of attachment.
On April 29, 2004, RTC deposited petitioner’s garnished funds with the clerk. On May 3, 2004, RTC released the deposit to Win Multi‐Rich upon its filing of a ₱9,000,000 surety bond by Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. (FESICO).

Petitioner filed Rule 65 certiorari before the CA (June 18, 2004). On March 14, 2006, CA annulled the RTC’s April 12 and April 29 orders and made permanent the injunction, but did not order return of deposit. Motion for reconsideration denied (October 11, 2006).
Petitioner elevated to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 (G.R. No. 175048). On February 10, 2009, SC ruled Win Multi‐Rich was not real party in interest, RTC lacked jurisdiction due to arbitration clause, and ordered Win Multi‐Rich to return ₱8,634,448.20 with 12% interest. Motion for reconsideration denied; decision became final June 2, 2009.
Petitioner moved for execution (June 26, 2009), seeking return of deposit and, if Win Multi‐Rich failed, to hold Visayan Surety & FESICO liable under their bonds. During execution proceedings, RTC granted execution (October 19, 2009), issued writ of execution, then upon sureties’ motions for reconsideration, on January 15, 2010 lifted execution against both sureties for lack of due process. Petitioner’s reconsideration denied (May 19, 2010).
Petitioner appealed to the CA. On October 21, 2013, CA affirmed RTC’s lifting of execution against Visayan Surety and FESICO for failure to comply with Section 20, Rule 57 (no timely application for damages before judgment). Motion for reconsideration denied (April 1, 2014). Petition for certiorari to this Court ensued.

Whether execution of the Supreme Court’s February 10, 2009 judgment may validly proceed against Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation and Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., without violating their right to due process.
Whether execution of the final SC judgment against the two surety companies gives full effect to the terms of the judgment.