G.R. No. L-17445, November 27, 1964
MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII and JOSE DE BORJA, respondents.

FACTS

1. In Civil Case No. 12296, Gelacio E. Tumanibing sued Jose de Borja. The trial court (respondent Judge Bienvenido A. Tan) issued a writ of preliminary attachment against de Borja’s properties upon Tumanibing’s application, secured by an attachment bond of P8,000.00 executed by petitioner Manila Underwriters Insurance Co., Inc. The bond was conditioned to pay for any damages de Borja might suffer if the attachment was later adjudged wrongful.
2. After trial, the court rendered a decision on December 21, 1954, dismissing Tumanibing’s complaint, dissolving the attachment, and sentencing Tumanibing to pay de Borja substantial sums on his counterclaims for damages arising from the wrongful attachment. The court ordered the maintenance of the attachment bond “to respond for damages.”
3. Crucially, the petitioner surety company was not impleaded as a party to the case, nor was it given any notice of de Borja’s counterclaim for damages or of the trial proceedings. It only received a copy of the adverse decision on January 25, 1955.
4. After the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, de Borja filed a motion for a writ of execution against the surety on March 19, 1957. The surety opposed, arguing it could not be held liable because it was not notified of the claim for damages as required by Section 20, Rule 59 (now Section 20, Rule 57) of the Rules of Court. Despite the opposition, the respondent judge granted the motion for execution on March 27, 1957.
5. The surety appealed this order to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-12256. On April 21, 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the surety, setting aside the order of execution. The Court held that since the surety was not notified of the claim for damages in the manner required by the Rules before the judgment became final, it could not be held liable under its bond.
6. Undeterred, on August 15, 1960, respondent de Borja filed a new motion in the same case, again asking the court to require the surety to show cause why it should not be liable and to issue execution against it. The surety opposed, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. L-12256 had already finally settled the issue.
7. The respondent judge, however, issued an order on August 30, 1960, citing the surety to appear and show cause, and denied the surety’s motion for reconsideration on September 10, 1960.
8. This prompted the surety to file the present petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul these orders.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of August 30 and September 10, 1960, which sought to again hold the petitioner surety liable on its attachment bond, after the Supreme Court had already definitively ruled in G.R. No. L-12256 that the surety could not be held liable due to lack of the required notice.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and declared the assailed orders void.
1. Finality of the Supreme Court’s Prior Decision: The Court held that the question of the surety’s liability on the bond had been finally settled by its decision in G.R. No. L-12256. In that case, the Court explicitly ruled that the surety could not be held liable because it was not notified of the claim for damages as mandated by the Rules of Court. This constituted a final adjudication on the merits of the issue.
2. Respondent Judge’s Error: The respondent judge’s subsequent orders, which attempted to resurrect the issue and again compel the surety to show cause for its liability, constituted a serious error. These orders were an improper attempt to reopen a case that had already been conclusively adjudicated. By disregarding the final and executory judgment of the Supreme Court, the respondent judge acted in a manner equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
3. Doctrine of Finality of Judgments: The Court emphasized the fundamental principle of res judicata and the immutability of final judgments. A final decision of the Supreme Court is conclusive and binding on all parties, including the lower courts. Any further proceeding to relitigate the same issue is void.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Supreme Court declared the orders of August 30, 1960 and September 10, 1960 void and of no legal force and effect. The preliminary injunction previously issued was made permanent. Costs were adjudged against respondent Jose de Borja.