GR 43461; (December, 1937) (Digest)
G.R. No. 43461 , December 16, 1937
J. UY KIMPANG & CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTE JAVIER, ET AL., defendants; JUAN AUTAJAY and SEVERINO MAGBANUA, sureties-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff J. Uy Kimpang & Co. obtained a judgment against several defendants. To enforce payment, the sheriff levied and sold seven parcels of land belonging to one defendant, but the proceeds were insufficient. The plaintiff then moved for execution against the properties of the sureties, Juan Autajay and Severino Magbanua, who had executed a counterbond to secure the release of an earlier attachment on the defendants’ properties. The sureties opposed, and the trial court denied the motion, ruling that the original writ of attachment was invalid because: (1) the justice of the peace who issued the order for the writ lacked authority due to the amount involved; (2) the writ itself was improperly issued by the clerk of court; (3) the plaintiff’s attachment bond was not approved by the court prior to the writ’s issuance; and (4) there was no formal court order discharging the attachment after the counterbond was approved.
ISSUE
Whether the counterobligation (counterbond) executed by the sureties is valid and enforceable against them despite the alleged defects in the original attachment proceedings.
RULING
Yes, the counterobligation is valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order. The defects in the attachment proceedings, even if assumed to exist, do not invalidate the counterbond voluntarily executed by the sureties. The sureties, by executing the counterbond which was approved by the court, are estopped from questioning the validity of the original attachment. Their obligation became independent of the attachment’s validity upon the defendants’ failure to return the released properties when required. The law presumes that the attachment was duly discharged upon approval of the counterbond. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the counterbond against the sureties for the unpaid balance of the judgment. The case was remanded for issuance of a writ of execution against the sureties’ properties.
AI Generated by Armztrong.