G.R. No. L-28454. May 18, 1978.
Emilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero, petitioners, vs. Honorable Valerio V. Rovira, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Branch IV); Eustaquio Agos, Maria Balajadia and Pacifico Lumauag, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Emilio Apachecha and Rosita Otero secured a favorable judgment in Civil Case No. 5911 against respondents Eustaquio Agos and Maria Balajadia. The judgment ordered the defendants to resell a parcel of land to the plaintiffs for P3,000.00, reimburse them P6,123.30 for produce, pay monthly damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. To stay the execution of this judgment pending appeal, the appellants (Agos and Balajadia) filed a supersedeas bond for P10,000.00, with respondent Pacifico Lumauag as one of the sureties.
The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeals for failure to submit the printed record on appeal, a dismissal ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court. Upon remand of the case to the trial court, execution was issued against the judgment debtors but was returned unsatisfied. Petitioners then filed a motion to hold surety Lumauag liable on the supersedeas bond.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to proceed against the surety on the supersedeas bond, based on the erroneous application of rules governing damages for wrongful preliminary injunction.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding grave abuse of discretion. The respondent judge erred in applying Section 9 of Rule 58 (on preliminary injunction) in conjunction with Section 20 of Rule 57, which require that a claim for damages against a surety be filed before final judgment and after a hearing with notice. The case at bar involves a supersedeas bond filed under Section 3, Rule 39 to stay execution of a judgment pending appeal, not a bond for damages arising from a preliminary injunction.
The legal logic is distinct. Under Section 3, Rule 39, a supersedeas bond is conditioned upon the performance of the judgment appealed from if it is affirmed. The rule explicitly provides that this bond “may be proceeded against on motion before the trial court, with notice to the surety, after the case is remanded to it by the appellate court.” Since the appeal had been finally dismissed and the record remanded, petitioners’ motion was perfectly timely and proper. The trial court’s denial based on inapplicable injunction rules was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, constituting certiorari.
The Court clarified that the exact amount of Lumauag’s liability under the P10,000.00 bond must be determined by the trial court, as it is contingent on the finalized total obligation of the judgment debtors. Lumauag’s new allegation of a possible amicable settlement was a factual matter to be resolved below. The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondent judge was directed to act on petitioners’ motion in accordance with Rule 39.