G.R. No. L-23868, October 22, 1970.
ZACARIAS C. AQUINO, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO SOCORRO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Zacarias C. Aquino filed an application for damages against respondent Francisco Socorro, claiming he suffered damages amounting to P199,000.00 due to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in Socorro’s favor in a prior action. The Court of Appeals dismissed Aquino’s claim. The records indicate that upon Aquino filing a counterbond of P2,000.00, the injunction was dissolved, and Socorro did not take possession or use the disputed forest area. Aquino filed his claim for damages based on the mere issuance of the writ, without alleging that the writ was actually enforced or implemented. Furthermore, Aquino erroneously assumed that Socorro’s injunction bond had been validly cancelled and filed his application for damages without regard to that bond.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as discussed in the concurring opinion, revolves around the proper remedy and basis for recovering damages arising from an allegedly wrongful preliminary injunction. Specifically, whether a claim for such damages can proceed independently of the injunction bond and what must be alleged and proven to establish liability.

RULING

The concurring opinion agrees with the dismissal of Aquino’s claim but clarifies several legal principles. First, it emphasizes that the cancellation of the injunction bond, if it occurred, was improper. Second, it stresses that the mere dismissal of an action or a judgment favorable to the defendant does not automatically imply that the injunction was improvidently issued. Third, it finds that Aquino’s application for damages was insufficient as it merely alleged the issuance of the writ and the amount of damages without setting forth facts showing his right to damages, such as the actual enforcement of the injunction. Fourth, it interprets the ruling in Pacis vs. Ocampo to mean that the recovery of damages for an injunction is limited to the amount of the bond, and this bond is the exclusive recourse for the enjoined party, regardless of whether the injunction was obtained maliciously or in good faith. The opinion expresses doubt that an independent action for damages (like malicious prosecution) exists outside the bond under Philippine law, suggesting Pacis may have restricted any broader implications from Molina vs. Somes. Finally, it notes that the main opinion suggests liability for damages beyond the bond requires proof that the main action was filed and the injunction was obtained maliciously and without probable cause, but these requisites were neither alleged nor proved in this case.