Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12271)
Background of Case
In October 1950, Joseph Abelow initiated a replevin action against the defendants to recover specific personal properties along with damages. To facilitate the seizure of these properties, Abelow provided an affidavit and a bond for the manual delivery of personal property under Rule 62, with the bond co-signed by Luzon Surety Co., Inc. An order for the seizure and delivery of the properties was issued and subsequently executed by the sheriff. However, the order was lifted shortly after due to the submission of a counter-bond, resulting in the return of the properties to the defendants.
Judgment and Appeal
The replevin case proceeded to hearing, and the court eventually ruled in favor of the defendants, requiring Abelow to pay San Ildefonso Lumber Co. a sum for damages plus attorney's fees. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and upon remand of the case, a writ of execution was issued. Subsequently, this writ was returned unsatisfied because the sheriff could not find any properties belonging to Abelow that could be levied upon.
Alias Writ of Execution
Following the unsuccessful execution, the defendants sought an alias writ of execution against Luzon Surety Co., Inc., positing that the surety should be held liable due to its role in the replevin bond. The surety filed an objection, arguing that the original judgment did not include any directive for it to pay and contended that it had not received prior notice regarding any claim against Abelow before the final judgment was issued.
Court's Ruling on Surety's Liability
The Manila court issued the alias execution against the surety despite its objections. Upon appeal, the higher court found merit in the surety's argument, determining that since the judgment did not contain any directive for the surety to pay and because the defendants failed to notify the surety of their claim before the judgment became final, the execution order against the surety was inappropriate.
Legal Principles Applied
The court based its decision on Rule 62 of the Rules of Court regarding the enforcement of a surety's liability, asserting that liability could only arise if an order against the surety was issued before the judgment became final and with proper
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-12271)
Case Background
- The case arose from an action for replevin filed by Joseph Abelow against Jose de la Riva and Gonzalo G. Padua in October 1950, aimed at recovering certain personal properties along with damages.
- Abelow secured an order for the seizure and delivery of the properties after submitting the required affidavit and a "bond for manual delivery of personal property," which was subscribed by Luzon Surety Co., Inc.
- The sheriff executed the order, seizing the properties, but the complaint was subsequently amended to include San Ildefonso Lumber Co. as an additional defendant, the actual holder of the personalty, leading to an amended bond also signed by Luzon Surety.
Procedural Developments
- Approximately one month later, a counter-bond was submitted, resulting in the lifting of the order of seizure, and the sheriff returned the properties to the defendants.
- The replevin case proceeded to a hearing, culminating in a judgment that absolved the defendants of liability.
- Abelow was ordered to pay San Ildefonso Lumber Co. the sum of P12,986.00, with interest for damages caused by the seizure, alongside P1,500.00 as attorney's fees.
Appeal and Subsequent Proceedings
- The judgment rendered against Abelow was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
- Upon the remand of the case to the lower court, a writ of executio