G.R. No. 19283; January 26, 1923
THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. MIGUEL BONA and UNION GUARANTEE CO., Ltd., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Bachrach Motor Co. sold an automobile to defendant Miguel Bona on installment, secured by a chattel mortgage. Due to Bona’s default, the mortgage was foreclosed. When Bona refused to surrender the car for the foreclosure sale, Bachrach filed a replevin suit (Civil Case No. 19649). To retain possession, Bona posted a re-delivery bond with Union Guarantee Co. as surety. The court in the replevin case ordered Bona to deliver the car to Bachrach. After the judgment became final, the car was delivered to the sheriff on November 1, 1921, and sold at auction on November 14, 1921, with Bachrach buying it for only P147. Bachrach then filed this separate action against Bona and the surety on the re-delivery bond, claiming damages of P1,853 for the car’s alleged deterioration between March 15, 1921 (when Bona regained possession via the bond) and November 1, 1921. The trial court held the bond did not cover deterioration and that damages were unproven, awarding only P66 for costs from the replevin case. Bachrach appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the re-delivery bond covers damages for deterioration of the replevied property while in the defendant’s possession.
2. Whether a separate action for such damages is permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure.

RULING

1. *On the coverage of the bond: The Supreme Court held that a re-delivery bond impliedly obligates the defendant to return the property in substantially as good condition as when taken, covering deterioration. The trial court erred in ruling otherwise.
2. On the separate action and proof of damages: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the damage claim, but on different grounds. First, the evidence of damages was insufficient. The P147 auction price did not conclusively prove the car’s value on November 1, as its value could have depreciated further during the two weeks it stood exposed before the sale, for which defendants were not liable. Second, and decisively, the Court ruled that a separate action for damages arising from a replevin suit is generally not allowed under Section 272 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended), citing Pascua vs. Sideco*. The law aims to settle all matters from the replevin controversy in a single suit to prevent multiplicity of actions. No exceptional circumstances justified a separate suit here. Furthermore, by accepting delivery of the car without objection and causing its sale, Bachrach’s actions could be seen as completing the delivery and releasing the surety. The judgment awarding only P66 for costs was affirmed.