G.R. No. L-832; October 14, 1946
ETHEL CASE and MINNA NANTZ, petitioners, vs. FERNANDO JUGO, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and FELIPE F. CRUZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Ethel Case and Minna Nantz were plaintiffs in a replevin action (Civil Case No. 55) in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover a truck. On July 12, 1946, they applied for and obtained a writ of seizure upon filing a bond of P20,000 under Rule 62 of the Rules of Court. The sheriff executed the writ on July 14, 1946. On July 17, 1946, the defendant, respondent Felipe F. Cruz, filed an ex parte motion for the return of the truck and filed a counterbond of P20,000. His attorney simultaneously gave a copy of the counterbond to the sheriff for service on the plaintiffs or their attorney. According to the respondents’ answer, the deputy sheriff, Simeon Serdenia, prepared the necessary papers for the return that same day. Petitioners’ counsel, Attorney Benedicto C. Balderrama, was present in the sheriff’s office and was informed of the filing of the counterbond. When asked if he objected to its sufficiency, he answered no, as it was executed by a surety company. However, Attorney Balderrama left the office before the papers were completed and a copy could be formally delivered to him. The deputy sheriff fell ill the next day, July 18, delaying formal service of the copy until a few days later. Upon recovery, when the copy was tendered, Attorney Balderrama refused to accept it on the ground that the five-day period under Rule 62 had already elapsed. Petitioners filed a motion for delivery of the property, which the respondent judge denied. They then petitioned for certiorari to set aside that order and compel delivery of the truck.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion for delivery of the property, despite the defendant’s alleged failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirement of serving a copy of the counterbond on the plaintiff or their attorney within the five-day period prescribed by Section 5, Rule 62 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that while the requirements of Section 5, Rule 62 for the defendant to file a counterbond and serve a copy on the plaintiff within five days from the sheriff’s taking of the property are mandatory, there was substantial compliance in this case. The sole purpose of furnishing a copy is to enable the plaintiff to examine the bond’s sufficiency and form to contest the property’s return if defective. Here, petitioners’ counsel was present in the sheriff’s office on the very day the counterbond was filed (July 17, well within the five-day period starting July 14), was informed of it, and expressly stated he had no objection to its sufficiency. This afforded him the full opportunity the rule intended. Under these circumstances, formal service of a copy became a “purposeless, unnecessary formality.” The Court applied the maxim that “Equity regards substance rather than form.” The delay in formal service was due to the sheriff’s illness, an unforeseen circumstance, and the petitioners’ counsel, by leaving before receiving the copy, contributed to the omission. The defendant took adequate steps by entrusting service to the sheriff, the proper officer. The Court emphasized that lapses in the literal observance of procedural rules will be overlooked when they do not involve public policy, arise from an honest mistake or accident, cause no prejudice to the adverse party, and do not deprive the court of authority. The petitioners’ cause was unmeritorious, and the counterbond itself was unassailable in amount and surety. The petition was denied with costs.