GR 24584; (March, 1926) (CRITIQUE)
__________________________________________________________________
THE AI-ASSISTED CRITIQUE
The Court correctly affirmed the denial of the writ of execution, as the dispositive portion of the original judgment contained no monetary award. The appellants’ reliance on the clause stating the bond “shall answer for the damages” was insufficient; this was a conditional declaration of liability, not a final adjudication of a specific sum. The Court properly distinguished this from cases involving mere clerical errors in judgments, noting the trial court’s factual recitation of daily revenue losses was not a judgment but merely a statement underlying a potential claim. The principle that a judgment must be certain and executable on its face is fundamental, and the Court rightly held that the city could not bypass this requirement by seeking execution on an incomplete adjudication.

Regarding the second assignment of error, the Court’s application of Santos vs. Moir was precise. The exclusive remedy for damages from a wrongfully issued preliminary injunction is their determination and inclusion in the final judgment of the principal action under the then-governing Code of Civil Procedure. By filing their motion over two months after the judgment dismissing the complaint had become final, the defendants allowed the matter to pass beyond the trial court’s control. This strict procedural rule serves the vital interest of finality of judgments, preventing the indefinite reopening of adjudicated cases. The Court correctly rejected the attempt to hold a post-finality hearing, as doing so would undermine the definitive nature of the earlier judgment absolving the defendants from the complaint.

The decision underscores a critical procedural lesson: a party seeking ancillary relief, such as damages on an injunction bond, must proactively secure its inclusion in the final judgment before it becomes final and executory. The city’s failure to do so, perhaps relying on the trial court’s suggestive language about the bond, constituted a fatal waiver. While the outcome may seem harsh given the stipulated daily losses, the Court’s rigid adherence to procedural timelines upholds the systemic need for certainty and closure in litigation. The ruling reinforces that equitable considerations cannot resurrect a lost procedural right, thereby maintaining the discipline required for orderly judicial administration.