G.R. No. L-13170; July 25, 1959
CARLOS CURILAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

This petition for mandamus and certiorari seeks to compel the Court of Appeals to deliver a P500.00 cash bond to petitioners. The bond was filed by petitioners (Carlos Curilan, et al.) to secure a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals in a certiorari and prohibition case they filed. The certiorari case stemmed from a forcible entry case where Ismael Sanchez (respondent) was the plaintiff and obtained a judgment. Petitioners’ petition for relief in the lower court was dismissed, and they subsequently filed the certiorari case in the Court of Appeals, which granted the preliminary injunction upon the P500.00 cash bond. The Court of Appeals later dismissed the certiorari petition for lack of merit and dissolved the injunction. The judgment became final on January 17, 1957. Petitioners filed motions to withdraw the cash bond. Respondent Sanchez then filed a motion for execution of the bond to answer for damages from the injunction. The Court of Appeals initially granted the withdrawal but later stayed its order and denied Sanchez’s motion, without prejudice to Sanchez filing a separate action for damages in the lower court. Petitioners challenge this resolution, claiming it constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing respondent Sanchez to file a separate action for damages against the injunction bond after the main certiorari case had become final, despite Sanchez not having filed a claim for such damages within the reglementary period.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court set aside the challenged resolution in so far as it granted Sanchez the right to file a separate action and ordered the return of the P500.00 cash bond to petitioners. The Court ruled that under Section 9, Rule 60 (referring to injunction bonds) and Section 20, Rule 59 (governing claims for damages on bonds, applied by analogy), a claim for damages arising from a preliminary injunction must be filed by application, with due notice to the surety, either before trial or, in the court’s discretion, before the entry of final judgment. Such damages are to be included in the final judgment after a proper hearing. This remedy is exclusive. Since the decision in the main certiorari case had become final and Sanchez failed to file his claim for damages on time or while the case was still under the court’s control, his right to such damages was lost, and the surety’s liability on the bond was extinguished.