Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37908)
Facts:
Antonio Zaragoza v. Maria Angela Fidelino and/or "John Doe," G.R. No. L-29723, July 14, 1988, Supreme Court First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.This case arises from a replevin action filed by plaintiff-appellee Antonio Zaragoza in the Court of First Instance, Quezon City (Branch 5, Civil Case No. Q-9979), seeking recovery of an automobile allegedly sold to defendant Maria Angela Fidelino who had failed to pay the agreed purchase price. A writ of delivery issued and the sheriff seized the car pursuant to Rules of Court, Sections 3 and 4, Rule 60. The seized automobile was released back to Fidelino when Mabini Insurance & Fidelity Co., Inc. (the surety-appellant) posted a counter-bond for the release (in double the value of the property, P48,600), as authorized by Section 5, Rule 60.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Zaragoza on February 12, 1968, ordering the defendant to pay the unpaid purchase price, interest, collection expenses, and liquidated damages (dispositive portion quoted below in Ruling). Within the appeal period Zaragoza filed a motion to amend the decision so as to include Mabini Insurance as jointly and severally liable with Fidelino for the sums awarded. The motion was noticed for hearing on March 23, 1968; neither Fidelino nor Mabini appeared or filed opposition. By Order dated April 16, 1968 the trial court amended its dispositive portion to join the surety as jointly and severally liable.
Mabini filed a motion for reconsideration which the trial court denied; it then appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court (the appeal taken prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 5440). Mabini challenged (1) the court’s jurisdiction over it because it was never served with summons and its posting of the counter-bond could not be equated with voluntary submission to jurisdiction, (2) Zaragoza’s failure to foll...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the surety, Mabini Insurance & Fidelity Co., Inc., so that it could be made jointly and severally liable by amendment of the judgment, despite lack of formal summons?
- Were the procedural requisites to hold a surety liable on a counter-bond (notice and opportunity to be heard; timely application before finality) satisfied so as to permit amendment of the judgment to include the surety?
- Was the amendment of the judgment on April 16, 1968 timely and valid, or had the judgm...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)