A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362, MTJ-11-1785 - Inoturan vs. Limsiaco, Jr.

Origin and Parties
On July 19, 1948, spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog (“plaintiffs”) filed Civil Case No. R-660 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu against spouses Magdaleno Sibonghanoy alias Gavino Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio (“defendants”), seeking P 1,908.00 plus interest and costs.
The Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. (“Surety”) became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948 by filing a counter-bond to dissolve a writ of attachment issued on defendants’ properties.

Procedural History
Defendants answered with admissions, denials, and a counterclaim; plaintiffs replied. Trial on the merits ensued.
Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs; upon finality and issuance of execution, the writ against defendants was returned unsatisfied.
Plaintiffs moved to execute against the Surety’s bond; Surety opposed for “failure to prosecute” and “absence of demand.” The CFI denied execution for lack of prior demand.
Plaintiffs made demand; second motion for execution was set for hearing. The CFI granted Surety five days to answer; no answer was filed, and the writ issued.
Surety moved to quash the writ, alleging no summary hearing under Section 17, Rule 59, Rules of Court; the motion was denied, and reconsideration was likewise denied.
Surety appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), assigning errors: omission of summary hearing, wrongful issuance of execution, and denial of motions to quash.
On December 11, 1962, the CA affirmed. On January 12, 1963, Surety moved in the CA to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of the CFI under Republic Act No. 296 (limits of ₱2,000), raising it for the first time. The CA certified the case to the Supreme Court on May 20, 1963.

Procedural and Evidentiary Issues
Whether the CFI complied with the “summary hearing” required by Section 17, Rule 59, before issuing execution against the bond.
Whether issuance of execution against the Surety required a separate judgment or could be issued in the same action.
Whether the writ of execution should have been quashed for non-compliance with mandatory hearing requirements.

Jurisdictional Issue
Whether the CFI of Cebu had original jurisdiction over a civil claim of P 1,908.00 under RA 296 effective June 17, 1948 (jurisdiction limited to claims over ₱2,000).
Whether the Surety, having participated for 15 years, could raise lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at this late stage.