Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21450)
Key Dates
• June 17, 1948 – Effectivity of Republic Act No. 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948)
• July 19, 1948 – Filing of complaint in CFI Cebu for ₱1,908.00
• July 31, 1948 – Defendants file counter-bond with Manila Surety
• December 11, 1962 – Court of Appeals affirms trial court orders
• January–May 1963 – Bonding company raises jurisdictional plea; case certified to Supreme Court
Applicable Law
• Judiciary Act of 1948 (RA 296), §§ 44(c), 86(b) – CFI jurisdiction over demands ≤ ₱2,000
• Rules of Court, Rule 57 § 12 – Bond to secure judgment
• Rules of Court, Rule 59 § 17 – Execution against surety after unsatisfied execution, notice, and summary hearing
Procedural Background
Respondents sued the Sibonghanoys in CFI Cebu for ₱1,908 with interest. A writ of attachment issued, later dissolved upon posting of a counter-bond by the defendants and Manila Surety. After trial, judgment in respondents’ favor became final; execution against the Sibonghanoys proved fruitless. Respondents then moved to execute the bond against the surety.
Trial Court Proceedings on Bond Execution
On first motion, the trial court denied execution for lack of prior demand on the surety. Respondents made the required demand and renewed their motion. At the hearing, counsel for Manila Surety requested five days to answer; none was filed. The court thereupon granted execution and issued the writ. The surety’s subsequent motion to quash—contending absence of the summary hearing mandated by Rule 59, § 17—was denied, as was its motion for reconsideration.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
The surety appealed solely on the ground that no summary hearing had been held prior to issuance of the writ. The Court of Appeals, relying on Rule 59, § 17, held that the surety received notice, appeared through counsel, requested time to answer, and then failed to respond. The absence of any objection or answer constituted its waiver of hearing rights. The CA affirmed the orders, imposing costs on the surety.
Jurisdictional Challenge and Certification
After the adverse CA decision, the surety moved to dismiss on the ground that, under RA 296 effective June 17, 1948, CFI Cebu lacked jurisdiction over demands not exceeding ₱2,000. The CA, recognizing its exclusive appellate jurisdiction when inferior-court jurisdiction is in issue, found the point meritorious but raised for the first time after final decision and fifteen years of proceedings. Citing public-policy grounds against “stale demands,” the CA certified the case to the Supreme Court pursuant to RA 296, § 31.
Supreme Court Ruling: Laches and Estoppel
The Supreme Court acknowledged that subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage, but held that the surety was barred by laches and estoppel from belatedly challenging jurisdiction after actively litigating and seeking affirmative relief for nearly fiftee
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-21450)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported in 131 Phil. 556
- G.R. No. L-21450
- Decision promulgated April 15, 1968, by Justice Dizon
- Appealed order denying motion to quash writ of execution and motion for reconsideration
Factual Background
- July 19, 1948: Spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog sue spouses Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio for ₱1,908.00 plus legal interest and costs in CFI Cebu
- Court issues writ of attachment on defendants’ properties
- July 31, 1948: Defendants and Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. file counter-bond; attachment dissolved
Trial, Judgment, and Execution
- Defendants answer and interpose counterclaim; plaintiffs reply
- After full trial, judgment awarded plaintiffs recovery of ₱1,908.00 with interest and costs
- Judgment becomes final and executory; writ of execution against defendants returned unsatisfied
First and Second Motions Against the Surety
- Plaintiffs move to execute against the counter-bond; surety opposes on grounds of failure to prosecute and absence of demand
- Court denies motion solely for lack of prior demand
- Plaintiffs make demand; file second motion; surety’s counsel granted five days to answer but fails to do so
- Court grants execution against the surety; writ issued
Motion to Quash and Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Surety moves to quash writ for lack of summary hearing under Section 17, Rule 59, Rules of Court
- Trial court denies motion and reconsideration; surety appeals only on:
• Absence of summary hearing under Rule 59, §17
• Erroneous issuance of execution against the surety
• Denial of motion to quash and reconsideration
Court of Appeals Decision and Certification to the Supreme Court
- December