G.R. No. L-11993; April 13, 1959
CONSORCIO MEDRANO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (5th Div.) and MAMERTA MACASERO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals. The case originated as an ejectment suit filed on February 28, 1947, in the Municipal Court of Cebu City. The plaintiffs (respondents Mamerta Macasero, et al.) are owners of a lot, and the defendants (petitioners Consorcio Medrano, et al.) are owners of a house built on said lot. The plaintiffs sought payment of unpaid rentals from May 1945 to March 1947 at a rate of P5.00 per square meter per month, and the ejectment of the defendants. Upon an affidavit by one of the plaintiffs, the Municipal Court issued an ex-parte order of attachment on March 3, 1947, leading to the attachment of defendants’ properties including a piano, typewriter, office furniture, medicines, drugs, and their house.
In their answer, the defendants alleged the rental rate was illegal and exorbitant and, by way of counterclaim, asked for damages due to the allegedly wrongful attachment. The Municipal Court rendered judgment on July 9, 1947, ordering defendants to vacate, fixing rentals, and condemning them to pay accrued and future rentals.
The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu but failed to file a supersedeas bond or pay the rentals as required by the Rules. Consequently, upon plaintiffs’ application, the CFI issued an order of execution on March 15, 1948. This led to levies on the defendants’ house, bank deposit, goods, and furniture. The attached properties were later sold at public auction. In the CFI, the defendants reiterated their claim for damages due to the alleged wrongful attachment.
After trial, the CFI rendered judgment awarding damages to the defendants (petitioners) for the value of the attached and sold properties (piano, house, stock, and a consigned deposit), while confirming the ejectment order. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the CFI judgment by excluding the award of damages. The petitioners (defendants) then filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as treated by the Supreme Court, is whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering and ruling upon the lawfulness of the writ of attachment issued by the Municipal Court, even though the plaintiffs-appellants (respondents herein) did not specifically assign this as an error in their appeal to the Court of Appeals. A corollary issue is whether the issuance of the writ of attachment was wrongful, thereby justifying the award of damages by the trial court.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the Court of Appeals’ consideration of the attachment issue: The Supreme Court held that while the plaintiffs-appellants did not specifically assign as error the trial court’s finding that the attachment was unlawful, the Court of Appeals was justified in discussing and determining this decisive question motu proprio. Under Section 5, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court, an appellate tribunal may consider plain errors even if not specified by the parties. Since the trial court’s award of damages was based on the alleged wrongful issuance of the writ, the question was important and properly considered by the Court of Appeals.
2. On the lawfulness of the attachment: The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the writ of attachment was not wrongfully or improvidently issued. The affidavit for attachment, executed by one of the plaintiffs, complied with the rules by stating personal knowledge, the existence of a cause of action, that the case fell under Section 1 of Rule 59, and that the amount due was above all legal counterclaims. The Municipal Court, in issuing the writ, presumably verified the cause of action and was convinced the ground for attachment (that defendants were about to transfer properties to defraud creditors) existed. There was no proof this ground was untrue.
3. On the defendants’ failure to seek remedies: The Court emphasized that the defendants’ troubles were largely due to their own fault. They failed to move to quash the attachment before or after their properties were attached, as allowed under Section 13, Rule 59, by traversing the affidavit’s contents and seeking a hearing. Furthermore, they failed to file a supersedeas bond and pay rentals during their appeal to the CFI, which led to the execution of the judgment against them.
Therefore, the Supreme Court found no basis for the award of damages against the plaintiffs (respondents) and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision setting aside that award.