Title
Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 72005
Decision Date
May 29, 1987
A counterbond posted to release attached properties is liable for execution pending appeal, as it secures "any judgment," including non-final ones.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 72005)

Background of the Case

Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc. filed a complaint for the collection of a monetary sum against Varian Industrial Corporation in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. During this litigation, Sycwin obtained an attachment on certain properties of Varian, which was subsequently lifted when Varian posted a counterbond of P1,400,000. The trial court ruled in favor of Sycwin, awarding it P1,401,468 plus additional damages, and Varian appealed the decision. Sycwin pursued a motion for execution pending appeal, which was granted, but the writ of execution came back unsatisfied due to Varian's failure to comply with the court’s orders.

Legal Proceedings

Upon receiving the court's order for execution pending appeal, Sycwin petitioned for the surety, Philippine British Assurance Co., to pay the value of the bond. The petitioner, Philippine British Assurance Co., subsequently filed a comment in response to this motion. The Intermediate Appellate Court, in its resolution on September 12, 1985, granted Sycwin's petition, resulting in the filing of the present petition for review.

Issues Presented

The central legal issue at stake is whether an order for execution pending appeal can be enforced against the counterbond posted by the petitioner. Sycwin contended that the issuance of certiorari without a prior motion for reconsideration is impermissible, while the petitioner argued for the urgency and appropriateness of this course of action given the nature of the case.

Examination of the Counterbond and Applicable Law

The court reviewed the provisions of Sections 5, 12, and 17 of Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court, emphasizing that the counterbond was designed to ensure payment for "any judgment" that the attaching creditor might recover. The Supreme Court concluded that the lack of limitation within the counterbond's application implies that an execution stemming from either a final judgment or an appealable decision, if returned unsatisfied, would indeed be charged against the counterbond.

Conclusion on the Applicability of t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.