G.R. No. 72005 - Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Private respondent Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc. filed a complaint for the collection of money against Varian Industrial Corporation before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
During the pendency of the collection suit, Sycwin succeeded in obtaining an attachment on some of Varian’s properties by requiring the latter to post a supersedeas bond.

Varian Industrial Corporation posted a counterbond in the amount of P1,400,000.00 through petitioner Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. to secure the release of the attached properties.
On December 28, 1984, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Sycwin granting summary judgment against Varian, which included various monetary orders (payment of principal, interest, liquidated damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs).
Varian appealed the decision, and meanwhile, Sycwin filed a petition for execution pending appeal against Varian’s properties.

The respondent Court (Intermediate Appellate Court) ordered the execution pending appeal on July 5, 1985.
When Varian failed to comply with the order to deliver the previously attached personal properties, the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied.
On August 13, 1985, Sycwin then filed a petition requesting that petitioner (the surety) be ordered to pay the value of its counterbond.
The respondent Court eventually granted this petition by resolution dated September 12, 1985, ordering the issuance of the writ of execution against the counterbond to satisfy the judgment.

Petitioner, Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc., moved for review on certiorari questioning the enforcement of an order of execution pending appeal on the counterbond.
On September 25, 1985, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the execution order pending further resolution.

The counterbond explicitly referenced its issuance pursuant to Section 5, Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court, setting out conditions for lifting the attachment and for application of the bond for the payment of any judgment.
Specific provisions of Sections 5, 12, and 17 of Rule 57 were cited:

Section 5 details the manner of attaching property and the requirements for posting a counterbond.
Section 12 provides for the discharge of attachment upon submission of a counterbond.
Section 17 specifies that a counterbond may be charged for the payment of any judgment when execution is returned unsatisfied.

Whether an order of execution pending appeal of a judgment may be enforced against a counterbond secured under Section 5, Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Whether the provision “any judgment” in the counterbond, which is general in nature, extends to cover not only a final and executory judgment but also a judgment pending appeal, provided the execution is returned unsatisfied.
Whether the absence of a requirement for a prior motion for reconsideration in the enforcement of the counterbond, given the urgency of the case, precludes judicial intervention on certiorari.