G.R. No. L-26865-66 January 30, 1970
LUZON SURETY CO., INC., petitioner, vs. LEOVEGILDA, BONIFACIA and JOVITA, all surnamed BESON, CONCEPCION BESON DE GUTIERREZ, PASTOR QUEBRAR, THE MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND HONORABLE EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Luzon Surety Co., Inc. filed a special civil action for certiorari with a writ of preliminary injunction to nullify a writ of execution dated September 27, 1966, issued by the clerk of court under respondent Judge Eduardo D. Enriquez. The writ sought to satisfy a liability of P8,732.23 allegedly imposed on petitioner without due process. The liability stemmed from executor’s bonds it had executed for respondent executor Pastor Quebrar in estate settlement proceedings. However, an order dated October 20, 1962, had cancelled these bonds upon the executor’s motion and directed the filing of a new bond for P8,732.23. Respondent Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. eventually filed a new bond for this amount on November 11, 1965. On July 18, 1966, the Beson respondents filed a motion for confiscation of the executor’s bond due to non-compliance with a June 25, 1966 order for reimbursement. Manila Surety opposed, arguing its bond was prospective and did not cover pre-existing liabilities. On September 14, 1966, the Besons filed a motion to specify which surety company should pay. A copy was sent to petitioner’s Bacolod office, but there was no proof of receipt. Without clarifying the liable surety, respondent Judge issued an order on August 6, 1966, declaring the bond confiscated to pay P8,732.23, to be made effective by the surety company at the time the Court of Appeals decision was rendered. This ambiguous order led to the assailed writ of execution against petitioner. Petitioner filed motions to quash and for reconsideration, arguing it ceased to be a party after the 1962 cancellation and was denied a hearing, but these were summarily denied.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of execution issued against petitioner Luzon Surety Co., Inc. is valid, considering it was allegedly issued without affording petitioner procedural due process, specifically the opportunity to be heard.
RULING
No, the writ of execution is not valid. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The Court held that petitioner was denied procedural due process. The lower court’s order of August 6, 1966, and the subsequent writ of execution were issued without granting petitioner an opportunity to be heard on its defenses, particularly the prior cancellation of its bond in 1962. The denial of a hearing, especially when the imposition of pecuniary liability was unclear and petitioner had substantial defenses, rendered the writ void. The Court emphasized that procedural due process is a fundamental constitutional safeguard requiring fairness and an opportunity to be heard, particularly before imposing liability on a surety. The case was remanded to the lower court for appropriate disposition in accordance with law.
