G.R. No. 37708 ; November 20, 1933
ASUNCION NUEVA-ESPAÑA, special administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased Atilano Montelibano, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTE MONTELIBANO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

In a prior case (Civil Case No. 1761), Vicente Montelibano sued Atilano Montelibano and obtained a writ of attachment against Atilano’s properties. Atilano counterclaimed for damages due to the allegedly unjust attachment. The trial court, finding the attachment without sufficient legal ground, awarded Atilano P500 as indemnity. Both parties appealed. Atilano’s appeal was dismissed for abandonment, and the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Years later, after the judgment was deemed executed, the deceased Atilano’s estate filed a new action seeking additional indemnity of P147,953.97 for damages from the same attachment.

ISSUE

Whether the new action for additional damages arising from the same writ of attachment is barred.

RULING

No. The action is barred. The remedy for damages resulting from an erroneous attachment is exclusively governed by Section 439 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires such a claim to be raised incidentally in the original action where the attachment was issued. Atilano’s claim for damages was already litigated and finally adjudicated in the prior case (Civil Case No. 1761), where he was awarded P500. The doctrine of res judicata therefore bars the subsequent action based on the same grounds. The appealed judgment absolving the defendants was affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.