G.R. No. L-8228, L-8229, L-8230; January 16, 1914
TAN TI (alias Tan Tico), plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN ALEVAR, as sheriff, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
(Consolidated with G.R. No. L-8229 and G.R. No. L-8230)

FACTS:
Three separate plaintiffs, Tan Ti, Tiu Uco, and Tiu Tiao et al., each owned retail stores in Dagupan. The Court of First Instance of Manila issued a writ of execution against the properties of one Lim Kok Tiu, with accompanying notices of garnishment to be served on the plaintiffs. The notices were sent to the sheriff of Pangasinan. The sheriff’s deputies, Lopez and Zulueta, instead of merely serving the garnishment notices, wrongfully informed the store owners that they must post bonds of P15,000 each or their stores would be closed. The plaintiffs went to Manila to consult lawyers, who advised them the sheriff had no authority to close the stores on a mere garnishment. Upon returning to Dagupan, the plaintiffs so informed the deputies. Despite this, and despite subsequent explicit instructions from the judgment creditor’s attorney (via telegram and letter) directing the sheriff not to close the stores but to proceed under Section 431 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the deputy sheriffs proceeded to close and guard the stores on November 13, 1911. The plaintiffs filed suits for damages on November 17, 1911. The wrongful attachments were finally lifted on November 21, 1911. The lower court awarded damages to each plaintiff, including items for loss of profits, impairment of credit, attorney’s fees, rent, wages, and travel expenses.

ISSUE:
Whether the awarded damages, specifically for attorney’s fees and impairment of credit, are proper and recoverable for wrongful attachment.

RULING:
The Supreme Court MODIFIED the lower court’s judgments. It affirmed the awards for actual and compensatory damages that were directly and proximately caused by the wrongful attachment, but disallowed the awards for attorney’s fees and impairment of credit.

1. Allowable Damages: The Court allowed the following items as they were fair, reasonable, and directly resulted from the wrongful act:
Loss of profits calculated based on reduced sales during the closure period.
Pro-rata rent for the store and wages for employees during the closure.
Expenses for two trips to Manila, as both were the direct and proximate result of the deputies’ wrongful representations and actions.

2. Attorney’s Fees NOT Allowable as Damages: The Court held that attorney’s fees incurred in procuring the release of wrongfully attached property or in prosecuting a suit for damages arising from such attachment are not a proper element of damages in this jurisdiction. This ruling aligns with the Court’s precedent in Ortiga Bros. & Co. vs. Enage and Yap Tico (18 Phil. Rep., 345). Attorney’s fees are only recoverable as costs when expressly provided by statute (Sections 489 and 492, Code of Civil Procedure), which was not the case here.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgments were modified by deducting the disallowed items. Damages were reduced as follows:
Tan Ti’s case: From P1,227.50 to P227.50.
Tiu Uco’s case: Reduced to P460.50.
Tiu Tiao et al.’s case: Reduced to P987.00.
As modified, the judgments were affirmed. No costs were awarded.