G.R. No. L-8228, L-8229, L-8230; January 16, 1914
TAN TI (alias Tan Tico), plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN ALEVAR, as sheriff, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
(Consolidated Cases)

FACTS:
Three separate plaintiffs, Tan Ti, Tiu Uco, and Tiu Tiao et al., each owned retail stores in Dagupan. The Court of First Instance of Manila issued a writ of execution against one Lim Kok Tiu, with garnishment notices to be served on the plaintiffs. The notices were forwarded to the sheriff of Pangasinan. Deputy Sheriff Zulueta, instead of merely serving the notices, threatened to close the plaintiffs’ stores unless each posted a bond of P15,000. The plaintiffs, after consulting lawyers in Manila, informed the deputies that the garnishment did not authorize closure. Despite this and subsequent explicit instructions from the judgment creditor’s attorney not to close the stores but to proceed under Section 431 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the deputy sheriffs wrongfully closed and placed guards at the stores on November 13, 1911. The plaintiffs filed suits for damages on November 17. The attachments were lifted on November 21, 1911. The lower court awarded damages in each case, including items for lost profits, impairment of credit, attorney’s fees, rent, wages, and travel expenses.

ISSUE:
Whether the awarded damages, specifically for attorney’s fees and impairment of credit, are recoverable for wrongful attachment.

RULING:
The Supreme Court MODIFIED the lower court’s judgments.

1. Attorney’s Fees: Attorney’s fees incurred to secure the release of wrongfully attached property and to prosecute the suit for damages are not a proper element of damages in cases of wrongful attachment. The Court adhered to its precedent in Ortiga Bros. & Co. vs. Enage and Yap Tico and the principle that such fees, beyond statutory costs, cannot be charged to the adverse party, as they are not more necessary or recoverable in attachment cases than in other litigation. The awarded attorney’s fees were disallowed.

2. Impairment of Credit: The claimed damages for impairment of credit were disallowed. The Court found them to be “infinitesimal and speculative” in this instance, noting that the plaintiff’s sales for December following the incident were robust. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had already been fully compensated for business interruption through the award of lost profits.

3. Other Items of Damages: The Court upheld the awards for:
Lost Profits: Calculated reasonably based on reduced sales during the closure.
Rent and Wages: As pro-rata fixed expenses during the closure.
Travel Expenses: For both trips to Manila, as the first trip was a direct and proximate result of the deputies’ unlawful representations.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgments were modified by disallowing the awards for attorney’s fees and impairment of credit. Damages were reduced as follows:
Tan Ti’s case: From P1,227.50 to P227.50.
Tiu Uco’s case: Reduced to P460.50.
Tiu Tiao et al.’s case: Reduced to P987.00.
As modified, the judgments were affirmed. No costs were awarded.