G.R. No. L-7550; April 29, 1955
DONALD A. ROCCO, plaintiff, vs. MORTON MEADS, defendant-appellee, PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., bondsman-appellant.

FACTS

On March 11, 1948, plaintiff Donald A. Rocco filed a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover damages from defendant Morton Meads for allegedly instituting a malicious criminal action for estafa against him. On July 13, 1948, Rocco secured an order for the attachment of Meads’ properties, filing a bond issued by the Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company. The properties were attached, but the order was lifted after Meads presented a counterbond. Meads then filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages caused by the complaint and attachment, and also secured an attachment of Rocco’s properties on April 6, 1949. After trial, the court dismissed Rocco’s complaint and awarded Meads damages on his counterclaim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but modified the damages awarded, eliminating several items. When the judgment became final, the clerk of court taxed costs against Rocco, including sheriff’s guards fees for guarding Rocco’s properties attached by Meads upon his counterclaim. Execution was issued, and upon partial unsatisfaction, a motion was filed against the Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company to pay the costs. The bondsman opposed, arguing it was not liable for these costs under its bond. The court overruled the opposition, citing Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Bernabe and Ferrer.

ISSUE

Is the plaintiff’s attachment bond liable for the sheriff’s fees incurred for guarding the plaintiff’s properties that were attached by the defendant upon his counterclaim?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the order of execution against the bondsman. The liability of the bondsman under Section 4 of Rule 59 arises only “if the court shall finally adjudge that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto,” meaning the attachment was unlawful or without cause. There was no such finding in the decisions of the lower court or the Court of Appeals. The bond’s liability is contractual and restricted to its express terms; it does not extend to all costs adjudged against the plaintiff, especially those not arising from the attachment secured by the bond. The costs in question were incurred by the defendant to enforce his own counterclaim, not by reason of the plaintiff’s attachment. The cited Macondray case is inapplicable as it involved costs enforced directly against a defendant, not a bondsman, and did not concern the specific conditional liability of an attachment bond. The bondsman’s liability is limited to costs and damages arising by reason of the attachment it secured.