Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7541)
Facts:
- Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation (Visayan Surety) seeks to annul an order requiring them to pay damages after a judgment had become final.
- Respondents: Isaac Lacson and Carmen P. de Lacson.
- Respondent judge: Emilio Rilloraza.
- Respondent sheriff of Pasay City.
- Case originated from Civil Case No. 1313-P of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
- Visayan Surety was ordered to pay damages due to the issuance of a preliminary injunction in the case.
- Visayan Surety argues that the claim for damages should have been presented in the principal action and included in the final judgment.
- They assert abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction in the order requiring them to pay damages.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court agrees with Visayan Surety and revokes the order requiring them to pay damages.
- If the judgment dissolving a writ of preliminary injunction contains no pronouncement against the surety for damages caused by the issuance of such writ, the defendant or the injured party may ask for an opportunity to prove damages against the surety, provided the surety is notified and the decision has not yet become final.
- In this case, the claim for damage...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- A claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a preliminary injunction must be presented in the principal action and judgment therefor must be included in the final judgment of the ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7541)
Facts:
The case of Visayan Surety & Insurance Corp. v. Lacson involves a petition filed by Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation (Visayan Surety) seeking to annul an order requiring them to pay damages after a judgment had become final. In Civil Case No. 1313-P of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Visayan Surety was ordered to pay damages to respondents Isaac Lacson and Carmen P. de Lacson due to the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Visayan Surety claims abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction and seeks to annul the order.
The record shows that in the above lawsuit, the respondent judge granted the petition for preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond by Dy Kho as principal and Visayan Surety as surety. However, the case was later dismissed and the injunction dissolved. The Lacsons filed a motion to set a date for the presentation of evidence of damages they suffered through the injunction, but no copy of their pleading was served upon the surety. The motion was denied for being insufficient in form and substance.
The Lacsons later filed another motion to present evidence for damages suffered and prayed for an assessment of the damages they had suffered due to the injunction. Copies of their petitions were served on Dy Kho and Visayan Surety. The respondent judge heard the evidence and awarded damages to the Lacsons, including damages chargeable to the bond subscribed by Visayan Surety. Visayan Surety filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the ori...