You are on page 1of 4

CARLOS VS.

SANDOVAL
(This is a long case with lots of convoluted facts)
TOPIC: Preliminary attachment:
DOCTRINE: Damages arising from illegal attachment may be claimed and awarded
only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment of the main case.
FACTS: This case is a consolidation of three related cases.
The Antecedent
Felix and Felipa Carlos acquired during their marriage six parcels of land. They had
two sons: Juan and Teofilo. Felix and Felipa died intestate. Teofilo also died
intestate, leaving his wife Sandoval and his son, Teofilo II (herein defendants). Juan
Carlos claims he is the only heir of Felix and Felipa, because his late brother Teofilo
and Sandoval were not validly married (no marriage license), and their son, Teofilo II
could not be considered as Teofilos child - in effect, Teofilo died without leaving any
heirs.
However, the subject parcels of land were registered in the name of Teofilo to due a
tax-saving scheme they made in the past. To get back the land, Juan entered into
certain agreement with Sandoval. But upon knowing that the marriage of Teofilo and
Sandoval was invalid, Juan sought to nullify these agreements. He also sought:
(1) that the marriage between Teofilo and Sandoval be declared void; (2) that new
titles of the properties be issued in his name; (3) restitution for 18M. Juan also
prayed for issuance of provisionary relief of preliminary attachment.
Juan Carlos posted a 20M bond issued by Siddcor Insurance. The court granted the
preliminary attachment. Notice of garnishment was served upon PNB over the
accounts of Sandoval.
Sandoval filed a motion to discharge the writ of attachment but it was denied.
Sandoval filed certiorari with the CA. The CA granted and ordered the discharge and
dissolution of the writ of attachment and notice of garnishment, which became final.
Back to the original complaint, after Sandoval filed an answer, she filed a motion for
Summary Judgment. Juan Carlos countered in by also filing his own Summary
Judgment. The court rendered a Summary Judgment in favor of Juan Carlos, granting
all his motions and prayers.
Juan Carlos moved for execution pending appeal, which was also granted by the court
and issued writ of execution.
Sandoval appealed to CA. She likewise filed a Petition for Certiorari with TRO,
attacking the allowance of execution pending appeal, and prayed for the annulment
of order granting execution and the writ.
Also, respondent Sandoval filed a Motion for Judgment on the Attachment Bond.
They noted that the CA, as affirmed by SC, had already ruled that the Writ of
Preliminary Attachment was improper and it had attained its finality (as above), and
they were entitled for damages as a result of unlawful attachment. With this, the CA
decided that it was necessary to resolve this motion first. The CA found that the
claim of Sandoval for damages was meritorious. PNB certified that the account of
Sandoval amounting to 15M had already been garnished while the court earlier

decided that Juan Carlos was not entitled to the preliminary attachment. Thus, the
Court ordered Juan Carlos and Siddcor Insurance to pay Sandoval 15M.
GR no. 135830
Juan Carlos argued that the CA could not have resolved the Motion for Judgment on
the Attachment Bond since the case had not yet been raffled; that CA erred in
resolving the motion without conducting any hearing; that CA had no jurisdiction
because the docketing fees had not yet been filed.
GR no. 136035
Siddcor Insurance argued that CA erred in ruling on the motion for damages without
awaiting the judgment in the main case; that a hearing was necessary to prove the
claim for damages.
GR no. 137743
Siddcor Insurance assails the allowance by the CA of the immediate execution of the
award for damages. Siddcor argues that the execution of a final order pending
appeal maybe made only on a motion of a prevailing party.
Sandoval countered that the judgment sought to be executed was interlocutory and
not appealable.
Facts arising subsequent to the filing of this instant petition
The CA issued writ of enforcement pertaining to the judgment on the attached bond.
SC issued TRO enjoining the enforcement of the said writ.
CA rendered a decision setting aside the Summary Judgment and remanding the case
to RTC for further proceedings.
ISSUE RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC: Whether CA properly complied with the hearing
requirement prior to its judgment on the attached bond.
HELD: YES
Section 20 Rule 57: An application for damages on account of improper, irregular or
excessive attachment must be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or
before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the attaching obligee or
his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the
amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing
and shall be included in the judgment on the main case.
There is no question in this case that the Motion for Judgment on the Attachment
Bond filed by respondents was properly filed since it was filed with the Court of
Appeals during the pendency of the appeal in the main case. The core questions
though lie in the proper interpretation of the condition under Section 20, Rule 57 that
reads: "Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be
included in the judgment on the main case." Petitioners assert that there was no
proper hearing on the application for damages and that the Court of Appeals had
wrongfully acted on the application in that it resolved it prior to the rendition of the
main judgment.
such damages may be awarded only on proper hearing
The hearing requirement ties with the indispensable demand of procedural due
process. Due notice to the adverse party and its surety setting forth the facts
supporting the applicant's right to damages and the amount thereof under the bond

is essential. No judgment for damages may be entered and executed against the
surety without giving it an opportunity to be heard as to the reality or reasonableness
of the damages resulting from the wrongful issuance of the writ. That hearing
embraces not only the right to present evidence but also a reasonable opportunity to
know the claims of the opposing parties and meet them.
The Court found it not mandatory that there should be a separate hearing in order
that damages upon the bond can be awarded. What is necessary only is for the
attaching party and his surety to be duly notified and given the opportunity to be
heard.
In this case, both Juan Carlos and Siddcor were duly notified by the appellate court of
the Motion for Judgment on the Attachment Bond; and Carlos and Siddcor filed their
respective comments in opposition. The relevant parties had been afforded the bare
right to be heard on the matter.
Proper hearing would not merely encompass the right of the parties to submit their
respective positions, but also to present evidence in support of their claims, and to
rebut the submissions and evidence of the adverse party. This is especially crucial
considering that the necessary elements to be established in an application for
damages are essentially factual: namely, the fact of damage or injury, and the
quantifiable amount of damages sustained. Such matters cannot be established on
the mere say-so of the applicant, but require evidentiary support. But the hearing is
not necessarily be a full-blown hearing on the merits.
In this case, proper hearing was satisfied as of the time the Court of Appeals
rendered its assailed judgment on the attachment bond. The judicial finding on the
wrongfulness of the attachment was then already conclusive and beyond review, and
that the amount of actual damages sustained was likewise indubitable. As a result,
petitioners would have been precluded from either raising the defenses that the
preliminary attachment was valid or disputing the amount of actual damages
sustained by reason of the garnishment. The only matter of controversy that could be
litigable through the traditional hearing would be the matter of moral and exemplary
damages, but the Court of Appeals appropriately chose not to award such damages.
Moreover, petitioners were afforded the opportunity to counter the arguments
extended by the respondents. They fully availed of that right by submitting their
respective comments/oppositions. In fine, the due process guarantee has been
satisfied in this case.
As to whether there should be an extensive full-blown hearing is discretionary upon
the trial court. However, with the CA and SC, they may choose to refer the hearing to
the trial courts, as CA and SC are not trier of facts. To impose mandatory full-blown
hearings on these appellate courts is supremely unwise.
and shall be included in the judgment on the main case
There is no need for a favorable judgment in favor of the party against whom
attachment was issued in order that damages may be awarded. It is indubitable that
even a party who loses the action in main but is able to establish a right to damages
by reason of improper, irregular, or excessive attachment may be entitled to
damages. Damages arising from wrongful attachment may arise and be decided
separately from the merits of the main action.

As to the surety, it becomes liable only when and if the court shall finally adjudge
that the applicant was not entitled to the attachment.
In the present case, the determination that the attachment was wrongful did not
come from the trial court, but from the CA in its exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction
and confirmed by SC. Such decision should be respected by the trial court and is no
longer subject for review. The only matter left for adjudication is the proper amount
of damages. And as the court puts it, the award for damages need not be resolved
before the case is submitted for decision, but should instead be resolved and
included in the judgment on the main case.
The action of the CA in resolving the application for damages even before the main
judgment was issued does not conform to the rule. But such error is not mortal to
the award of damages. The premature award of damages does not negate the fact
that the parties were accorded due process.
On Damages
The Court examined the particular award of damages made and found that the
manifestation made by PNB over the deposits maintained by the respondents
affirmed the actual amount seized by Juan Carlos.
As to the liability of the surety, its liability cannot be limited to the damages caused
by the improper attachment only during the pendency of the appeal. The
intendment of the law is that the surety shall answer for all damages that the party
may suffer as a result of the illicit attachment for levy to dissolution.
DISPOSITIVE: The petitions are DISMISSED. Decision of CA is AFFIRMED.

You might also like