G.R. No. L-10006; October 31, 1957
DIONISIA BAUTISTA, SEVERO ABELLERA as sheriff of Quezon City and FILEMON CAJATOR, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. MINERVA R. INOCENCIO PIGUING, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Consuelo Vda. de Buencamino purchased dinner sets from Emilio E. Lim under a conditional sale contract where title would pass only upon full payment. Dionisia Bautista sued Buencamino in the Municipal Court of Quezon City (Civil Case No. 1250) and caused the attachment of properties in Buencamino’s possession, including the dinner sets. Lim filed a third-party claim over the sets, but Bautista posted an indemnity bond (Bond No. 1518) from First National Surety and Assurance Co., Inc. to answer for any damages to the third-party claimant. Lim then sued Buencamino in the Municipal Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 31901) and won a judgment for possession, but the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied because the property had already been sold at public auction to Bautista via a writ from the Quezon City Court of First Instance. Lim then filed a complaint for damages in the Municipal Court of Quezon City (Civil Case No. 1578) against Bautista, the Sheriff of Quezon City, and the surety company, seeking P1,712 for the wrongful attachment and sale of his property. The surety company filed an answer with a cross-claim against Bautista and a third-party complaint against Filemon Cajator (based on an indemnity bond). Bautista, the Sheriff, and Cajator filed motions to dismiss, arguing improper venue and lack of jurisdiction, claiming the action to enforce the indemnity bond should have been filed in Manila where the bond was executed. The Municipal Judge of Quezon City denied the motions, ruling venue was proper in Quezon City as the action was for damages from a wrongful attachment levied by the Sheriff of Quezon City, a resident defendant. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City affirmed the denial for Bautista and the Sheriff but ruled that the third-party complaint against Cajator, due to a waiver clause in the counterbond, should be within Manila’s jurisdiction. Bautista and the Sheriff appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the action for damages in Civil Case No. 1578 was properly brought in Quezon City and whether the Municipal Court of Quezon City acquired jurisdiction over it.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that venue was properly laid in Quezon City. The action was for damages suffered by Emilio E. Lim due to the wrongful attachment of his property, not an action to enforce the indemnity bond. Since Lim was not a party to the indemnity bond contract, its terms (including place of execution) did not govern him. The action, being not upon a written contract involving the plaintiff, fell under paragraph (c) of Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, which provides that such actions shall be brought in the municipality where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be served with summons. As the Sheriff of Quezon City was a defendant and a resident of Quezon City, venue was properly laid in the Municipal Court of Quezon City.