G.R. No. L-45848 - Towers Assurance Corp. vs. Ororama Supermart

On February 17, 1976, See Hong, the proprietor of Ororama Supermart in Cagayan de Oro City, initiated a collection action against the spouses Ernesto Ong and Conching Ong in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental (Civil Case No. 4930) for the sum of ₱58,400 plus litigation expenses and attorney’s fees.
Prior to the issuance of any final decision, See Hong requested a writ of preliminary attachment to secure the claim.

On March 5, 1976, the lower court issued an order of attachment, and the deputy sheriff executed the attachment on the properties of the Ong spouses in Valencia, Bukidnon and in Cagayan de Oro City.
In an effort to lift the attachment, the Ong spouses filed a counterbond on March 11, 1976, binding themselves and Towers Assurance Corporation—named as the surety—to pay solidarily the sum of ₱58,400 to See Hong.

On March 24, 1976, the Ong spouses filed an answer coupled with a counterclaim.
Their nonappearance at the pre-trial led to their declaration in default by the lower court.

On October 25, 1976, the lower court rendered a decision ordering the Ong spouses and their surety, Towers Assurance Corporation, to pay solidarily the sum of ₱58,400, in addition to ₱10,000 for litigation expenses and attorney’s fees.
Ernesto Ong expressed his desire not to appeal.
Ororama Supermart, on March 8, 1977, filed a motion for execution which was granted by the lower court.
A writ of execution was issued on March 14, 1977 against both the judgment debtors and the surety.

On March 29, 1977, Towers Assurance Corporation filed a petition for certiorari challenging both the lower court’s decision and the issuance of the writ of execution against it.
The central contention was that the surety was subjected to execution without being granted the necessary procedural opportunity to be heard.

Whether the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion by issuing a writ of execution against the surety, Towers Assurance Corporation, without affording it the opportunity to be heard as mandated by procedural due process.
Whether the requirements of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court—specifically notice and summary hearing—were disregarded in the execution against the surety.
Whether the surety’s right to be heard, despite its solidary obligation in the counterbond, was infringed upon when execution was directed against it without prior demand and hearing.