G.R. No. L-28030 - Imperial Insurance, Inc. vs. De los Angeles

Private respondents Rosa V. Reyes, Pedro V. Reyes, and Consolacion V. Reyes secured writs of preliminary attachment in separate civil cases against defendant Felicisimo V. Reyes.
The Imperial Insurance, Inc. acted as surety for Felicisimo V. Reyes by posting counterbonds to dissolve the attachments in Civil Cases No. Q-5213 and Q-5214, amounting to P60,000.00 and P40,000.00 respectively.

The civil actions involving the attachments were jointly tried, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the private respondents.
The decision was affirmed on appeal in cases CA-G.R. Nos. 33783-R and 33784-R, and the judgment was remanded for execution.
On June 24, 1966, the respondent Judge, Hon. Walfrido de los Angeles of the Court of First Instance, issued writs of execution based on the judgment.
The writs of execution were returned unsatisfied (in whole or in part) by the Provincial Sheriff on August 20, 1966.

On September 9, 1966, the private respondents filed a motion for recovery on the surety bonds, followed by a formal letter of demand addressed to the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an opposition to the respondents’ motion for recovery on September 24, 1966.
On November 10, 1966, the respondent Judge rendered judgment against the counterbonds.
An ex parte motion for a writ of execution was filed by the respondents on November 15, 1966 without serving the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on November 23, 1966, which was later denied on January 9, 1967.
On January 19, 1967, the respondent Judge issued an order granting the writ of execution against the petitioner’s counterbonds.

On January 25, 1967, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for a preliminary injunction to restrain enforcement of the writ of execution.
The petitioner assigned four primary errors:

Erroneously issuing the writ of execution against the petitioner based on an ex parte motion lacking proper notice and hearing.
Allowing a judgment creditor to proceed directly against the surety without first exhausting the defendant’s properties.
Failing to consider the orders on the counterbonds as final and appealable under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Improper execution procedure regarding the “surviving claims” when the principal debtor died during the pendency of the case.

During the pendency of the case, defendant Felicisimo V. Reyes died.
He was duly substituted by his surviving spouse, Emilia T. David, as the administratrix of his intestate estate.

Whether the respondent Judge could legally issue a writ of execution against the petitioner as surety on a counterbond on the basis of an ex parte motion that was not served upon the petitioner nor set for hearing.

Whether it is proper for a plaintiff who has obtained judgment against a defendant to directly pursue the surety without first exhausting the debtor’s properties.

Whether the orders, including the one rendering judgment against the counterbonds and the denial of the motion for reconsideration, constitute final orders that are appealable pursuant to Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Whether the procedure followed by the sheriff or the manner of executing the judgment on the “surviving claims” should have adhered to a different rule given the substitution of the deceased defendant by the administratrix of his estate.