G.R. No. L-74696 & L-73916 November 11, 1987
JOSE D. CALDERON and FIRST INTEGRATED BONDING AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioners, vs. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, GEORGE SCHULZE, GEORGE SCHULZE, JR., ANTONIO C. AMOR, MANUEL A. MOZO, and VICTOR M. NALUZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose D. Calderon purchased six corporations from private respondents. Shortly after the sale, the Bureau of Customs suspended the operations of one corporation, Luzon Brokerage Corporation (LBC), for unpaid customs duties and taxes incurred prior to the sale. Calderon paid a portion to lift the suspension. He then filed a complaint for damages against the sellers for breach of warranty, alleging they fraudulently concealed this liability. He applied for and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment, supported by a surety bond from co-petitioner First Integrated Bonding and Insurance Company, leading to the attachment of respondents’ properties.
Private respondents countered that the tax liability was fully disclosed, recorded in the corporate books, and known to Calderon, who had thoroughly inspected the records before the purchase. They claimed Calderon used corporate funds, not his own, to pay the Bureau of Customs. They filed a counterbond to discharge the attachment and sought damages via a counterclaim for the allegedly baseless suit and malicious attachment.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the preliminary attachment was wrongfully and maliciously sued out, making Calderon liable for damages; and (2) whether the surety company remained liable on its attachment bond despite the subsequent filing of a counterbond that discharged the writ.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the liability of both Calderon and the surety company for damages but reduced the amounts awarded. The Court found that Calderon failed to prove his claim of fraudulent concealment. The tax liability was properly recorded, and Calderon had the opportunity to examine the books. Therefore, the attachment, which was based on the alleged fraud, was wrongfully obtained.
On the surety’s liability, the Court ruled it subsists notwithstanding the discharge of the attachment via a counterbond. Under Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, a surety’s liability arises if the court finally adjudges that the plaintiff was not entitled to the attachment. The method of discharging the writ—whether by counterbond or by proving improper issuance—does not extinguish this liability. The filing of a counterbond is merely a speedier remedy for the defendant and does not constitute a waiver of the right to claim damages for a wrongfully issued writ. The final reckoning is the court’s judgment that the attachment was not justified. Thus, both the principal and the surety are jointly and severally liable for the damages resulting from the wrongful attachment.