G.R. No. L-15339; May 23, 1960
LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, 6th Division, PRIMITIVO DOMINGUEZ, PIO DOMINGUEZ, SATURNINO CARREON, ARSENIO RIVERA, FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, ESTEFANIA VDA. DE RAYMUNDO, SABUNGANG BAGONG SILANG, INC., and THE HON. JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, FIRST BRANCH, respondents.

FACTS

On July 22, 1958, Sabungang Bagong Silang, Inc. filed a petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 22979 -R). Petitioner Luzon Surety Company, Inc. filed a bond in the amount of P1,000.00, upon which the Court of Appeals issued the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction on April 26, 1958. On July 21, 1958, the Court of Appeals granted a motion to dismiss the petition, denied the mandamus, and dissolved the preliminary injunction. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 18, 1958. An entry of final judgment was made on August 25, 1958, and the decision was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Rizal on November 3, 1958. On December 23, 1958, four months after the entry of final judgment, the other respondents (Victoriano, et al.) filed a motion with the Court of Appeals for leave to file a claim for damages upon the injunction bond furnished by Luzon Surety. Luzon Surety opposed the motion, arguing that the decision contained no judgment for damages, the decision was already final and executory, and the motion was filed out of time. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for leave on January 20, 1959, and denied Luzon Surety’s motion for reconsideration on February 20, 1959. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for leave to file a claim for damages against the injunction bond after the decision in the principal mandamus case had already become final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Luzon Surety Company, Inc. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated January 20, 1959 and February 20, 1959 were annulled and set aside.
The Court held that pursuant to Section 9, Rule 60 (on injunction) and Section 20, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, a claim for damages suffered by reason of a preliminary injunction must be presented in the principal action, and judgment therefor must be included in the final judgment. This remedy is exclusive. By failing to file a motion for the determination of damages on time and while the judgment is still under the control of the court, the claimant loses the right to such damages. The claim may be made, in the discretion of the court, at any time before the judgment becomes final and executory.
In this case, it was undisputed that no claim for damages was ever presented by the respondents in the principal mandamus action; the decision of July 21, 1958 contained no judgment for damages against the bond; that decision became final on August 25, 1958; and the motion for leave to file a claim for damages was filed only on December 23, 1958, almost four months after the decision became final and executory. Therefore, the Court of Appeals gravely erred in granting the motion.