GR L 29723; (July, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29723 July 14, 1988
ANTONIO ZARAGOZA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIA ANGELA FIDELINO and/or “JOHN DOE,” defendants, MABINI INSURANCE & FIDELITY CO., INC., surety-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiff Antonio Zaragoza filed a replevin action in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City against defendant Maria Angela Fidelino to recover an automobile due to her alleged failure to pay the purchase price. The sheriff seized the vehicle pursuant to a writ of delivery. Fidelino secured its release by posting a counter-bond from Mabini Insurance & Fidelity Co., Inc. The trial court subsequently rendered judgment in favor of Zaragoza, ordering Fidelino to pay the balance of the purchase price, liquidated damages, and costs.
Within the reglementary period for appeal, Zaragoza filed a motion to amend the decision to include the surety, Mabini Insurance, as a party solidarily liable for the judgment award. Copies of the motion and notice of hearing were duly furnished to both Fidelino and the surety, but neither filed an opposition nor appeared at the hearing. The trial court granted the motion and issued an amended decision holding Mabini Insurance jointly and severally liable with Fidelino.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly amended its final judgment to hold the surety liable on the counter-bond without a separate summons and after the judgment had allegedly become final and executory.
RULING
Yes, the trial court correctly amended the judgment. The Supreme Court, through Justice Narvasa, held that the procedure for holding a surety liable on a counter-bond in a replevin action is governed by Section 10, Rule 60, in relation to Section 20, Rule 57, of the Rules of Court. These provisions allow the award of damages (or the enforcement of the bond’s obligation) to be claimed, ascertained, and granted upon application filed before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice to the surety.
The Court rejected the surety’s arguments. First, by filing the counter-bond to secure the release of the property, the surety voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction for purposes of the bond’s enforcement; separate summons was unnecessary. Second, Zaragoza’s motion to amend the decision, filed within the appeal period and with due notice to the surety, constituted a proper application under the rules. The motion effectively suspended the finality of the judgment as to the surety’s liability, allowing the court to amend its decision to include the surety before it became executory. The amendment did not constitute a new judgment but was a correction to include a liable party whose obligation arose from the very bond it posted in the case. The trial court therefore acted within its authority.