G.R. No. and Date: G.R. Nos. L-8228, L-8229, L-8230. January 16, 1914.

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, along with notices of garnishment to be served on the plaintiffs. The notices were sent to the sheriff of Pangasinan. The deputy sheriffs, 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 based on garnishment. Despite the plaintiffs’ notification to the deputies and subsequent telegraphic and written instructions from the judgment creditor’s attorney to follow the proper procedure (under Section 431 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and not close the stores, the deputy sheriffs proceeded to close and guard the stores on November 13, 1911. The plaintiffs filed suits for damages. The attachments were 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:
What items of damages are legally recoverable for a wrongful attachment?

RULING:
The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s awards, disallowing certain items as improper elements of damages.
1. Attorney’s Fees: Attorney’s fees incurred for procuring the release of the attached property and for prosecuting the suit for damages are not a proper element of damages. The Court adhered to its precedent in Ortiga Bros. & Co. vs. Enage and Yap Tico, holding that such fees cannot be awarded as damages, only statutory costs may be taxed.
2. Impairment of Credit: Damages for alleged impairment of credit were disallowed. The Court found the claim speculative and infinitesimal, noting that the plaintiff’s sales in December (after the attachment was lifted) were substantial. Furthermore, any business interruption was already compensated by the award for loss of profits.
3. Allowable Damages: The following items were affirmed as proper and reasonable:
Loss of Profits: Calculated based on the reduction in gross sales during the closure period, using a 15% profit margin.
Rent and Wages: Pro-rated expenses for rent and employee wages during the closure period.
Travel Expenses: Expenses for two trips to Manila were allowed. The first trip, though made before the actual closure, was a direct result of the deputy sheriffs’ wrongful representations and was a proximate cause of the damages.
Loss of Profits on Cigarettes: As stipulated by the parties.

Judgment Modified: The damages awarded were reduced by disallowing the amounts for attorney’s fees and impairment of credit. The judgments, as modified, were affirmed. No costs were awarded in the instance of the appeal.