G.R. No. 135830, 136035, & 137743. September 30, 2005.
Juan De Dios Carlos and Siddcor (now Mega Pacific) Insurance Corporation, Petitioners, vs. Felicidad Sandoval, also known as Felicidad S. Vda. De Carlos, and Teofilo Carlos II, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos filed a complaint against respondents Felicidad Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos II, asserting he was the sole heir of his brother Teofilo. Carlos alleged Teofilo and Sandoval’s marriage was void for lack of a license and that Teofilo II was not Teofilo’s child. He sought to nullify agreements with Sandoval over family properties and recover sums paid. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Carlos’s application for a writ of preliminary attachment, supported by a bond from co-petitioner Siddcor Insurance. The Court of Appeals, however, dissolved the writ, finding no sufficient cause of action for attachment. This decision became final after the Supreme Court denied Carlos’s petition. The RTC later rendered a summary judgment in favor of Carlos, declaring the marriage void and awarding him ownership and damages.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether respondents are entitled to recover damages on the attachment bond after the writ of preliminary attachment was dissolved by final judgment, notwithstanding that Carlos ultimately prevailed in the main action for nullity of marriage and recovery of property.

RULING

Yes, respondents are entitled to recover damages. The Supreme Court clarified that a party against whom a wrongful attachment is issued may recover damages even if the judgment in the main case is ultimately adverse to them. The right to damages for wrongful attachment arises from the improper issuance of the writ itself, which is a separate provisional remedy, not from the merits of the principal action. The Court of Appeals’ final decision dissolving the writ established that Carlos was not entitled to the attachment. This final adjudication of the impropriety of the writ is the very basis for a claim for damages on the bond under Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, respondents, having suffered injury from an attachment wrongfully issued, have a cause of action against the surety, Siddcor Insurance, on the attachment bond. The trial court must conduct a hearing to ascertain the actual damages suffered by respondents as a result of the wrongful garnishment of their bank accounts. The summary judgment in the main case does not bar this separate claim for damages stemming from the ancillary writ.