Title
Tong vs. Santamaria
Case
G.R. No. 32560
Decision Date
Feb 1, 1930
Cho Siong's sureties contested a writ of execution after assuming debts; Supreme Court nullified it, ruling no liability due to prior judgment annulling Ong Guan Can's obligations.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 32560)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Initiation of the Case
    • The case originated when petitioners Juan Tong and J. Q. Coo Teng Hee instituted proceedings to prevent Judge F. Santamaria of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo from executing a writ dated November 5, 1929.
    • The petitioners argued that the execution order was null and void and that they had no other plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of justice.
    • The respondents, namely the judge and the Standard Oil Company of New York, maintained that the writ was based upon a solid principle of law and that the petition was an improper remedy.
  • The Contract of Agency and Surety Bonds
    • Cho Siong, acting as a sales agent under a contract for the sale of petroleum, was required to furnish:
      • A cash bond of P1,000.
      • A personal bond of P3,000, subscribed on January 27, 1926, with sureties including Ong Guan Can and Sun Sy Tong.
    • Without the knowledge of the sureties, Cho Siong subscribed another document assuming full responsibility for:
      • The accounts owing from the former sales agent, Tong Kuan.
      • All goods in Tong Kuan’s possession at the time when the agency was transferred to Cho Siong.
  • Subsequent Litigation and Procedural Developments
    • The Standard Oil Company of New York filed a suit against Cho Siong and his solidary sureties for the recovery of the owed amount plus attorney’s fees and costs arising from non-fulfillment of obligations.
    • In the course of that suit:
      • A writ of preliminary attachment was issued against the property of Ong Guan Can, noted on the transfer certificates of title Nos. 3416 and 3417.
      • The attachment was dissolved on November 19 when Cho Siong substituted a cash bond with a personal bond, after delivering a manager’s check in exchange for a defendant’s personal check.
    • Cho Siong later sought to withdraw the cash bond and substitute it with another personal bond.
      • The court approved the substitution, requiring an additional personal bond of P6,000 to be subscribed by petitioners Juan Tong and J. Q. Coo Teng Hee.
  • Multiple Actions and Appellate Review
    • Separate litigation arose when:
      • Ong Guan Can sued the Standard Oil Company for damages of P15,000, alleging unlawful attachment of his property.
      • In the case involving Standard Oil Company against Cho Siong et al., judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
    • On appeal:
      • The case of Standard Oil Company versus Cho Siong and his sureties was modified, reducing Cho Siong’s liability (secured by Ong Guan Can) to P64.40, which was covered by the deposited cash bond, while recognizing a debt of P3,132.96 incurred by Cho Siong due to obligations assumed for Tong Kuan.
      • In the suit of Ong Guan Can against the Standard Oil Company, the judgment was affirmed in that Ong Guan Can was not entitled to damages, as no actual damage was proved.
  • The Order of November 5, 1929 and the Contested Bond
    • Upon remand of the cases to the lower court, Judge Santamaria issued an order on November 5, 1929:
      • This order required petitioners (as sureties) to either return the manager’s check amounting to P3,000 or pay the sum of P2,197.42 related to the execution against Cho Siong.
    • The personal bond executed by the petitioners inserted the following key condition:
      • In the event that judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants were required, upon demand, to redeliver the property whose attachment had been dissolved.
      • Failing that, the defendants and their sureties would be obligated to pay the full value of the released property sufficient to cover the judgment plus costs.
      • The bond further stipulated that if the aforementioned condition was not met, the obligation became null and void.
    • This personal bond was given in substitution for the original cash bond, pursuant to Section 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the dissolution of an attachment.

Issues:

  • Effect of the Bond’s Condition
    • The primary issue centered on whether the condition contained in the personal bond (requiring the delivery of property or payment of its full value upon judgment) remains operative given that:
      • Ong Guan Can, as a surety, had not incurred any liability beyond that arising from Cho Siong’s acts under the agency contract.
      • The additional obligations assumed by Cho Siong for Tong Kuan were not known to the surety, thereby questioning the extension of liability.
  • Appropriateness of the Remedy
    • Whether the writ of prohibition (or its equivalent, a writ of certiorari) was a proper remedy to challenge the order of November 5, 1929 issued by the lower court, considering:
      • The availability of an appeal as an ordinary and plain remedy.
      • The practicality and speed of the purported appeal remedy in the ordinary course of justice.
  • Scope of Judicial Authority
    • Whether the lower court’s order functioned as an impermissible act of judicial revision:
      • Given that it appeared to vary or revise a judgment previously modified by the appellate court.
      • In light of the principle that subordinate courts must execute but not revise or intermeddle with superior court mandates.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.