G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955
VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 397, entitled “Ysidra Cojuanco, et al. vs. Manuel Ernesto Gonzales,” the Court of First Instance of Tarlac rendered judgment ordering defendant Gonzales to pay plaintiffs annual rentals for a leased parcel of land. This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court on September 15, 1953. During the pendency of the trial, plaintiffs prayed for the appointment of a receiver. Defendant Gonzales filed a counterbond, with the Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation as surety, binding themselves to pay plaintiffs damages suffered by reason of the non-appointment of a receiver, and was thereby allowed to retain possession of the property. After the Supreme Court’s affirmation, plaintiffs filed a motion in the trial court praying for execution against the surety’s bond for damages due to being deprived of the harvests. The trial court, through Judge Bernabe de Aquino, granted an amended motion to set a hearing for the reception of evidence on such damages, with the intent to thereafter issue execution against the surety corporation.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court, after the judgment on the main case had become final and executory, could issue an order to conduct a hearing for the purpose of ascertaining damages against the surety on a counterbond filed to prevent the appointment of a receiver, and then issue execution based thereon.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is granted. The order of the trial court is revoked. The applicable rule is Section 9, Rule 61 (now relevant provisions on receivers), which provides that the amount to be awarded upon any bond filed in accordance with the provisions on receivers shall be claimed, ascertained, and granted under the same procedure as prescribed in Section 20 of Rule 59 (now Rule 58, Section 20, on preliminary injunction). This procedure requires that a claim for damages on the bond should be filed in a supplemental complaint in the trial court for damages up to the date of its judgment, and an application in the appellate court for damages during the pendency of the appeal, and such claims must be made before the respective judgments become final so that the damages can be included therein. The philosophy is to settle the entire matter, including the liability on the bond, in the main action to avoid multiple suits and appeals. Since the respondents did not follow this procedure, no judgment against the surety exists. The trial court’s order effectively sought to secure a new judgment against the surety, which it could not do after the main judgment had become final. A judgment against the defendant alone cannot be enforced by execution against the surety on his counterbond without a prior judgment against the surety. The trial court’s order was issued in excess of its jurisdiction.