SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE v.

TRIA-INFANTE (2005)
Petitioner: Security Pacific Assurance Corporation
Respondent: Hon. Judge Tria-Infante, Reynaldo and Zenaida Anzures
Ponente: Chico-Nazario

approved by SC and that the condition by which the bond was issued, did
not happen. court denied.
9. CA affirmed RTC= Security Pacific liable; no GAD
ISSUES:

DOCTRINE: There are two (2) ways to secure the discharge of an

attachment. 1. - the party whose property has been attached or a person
appearing on his behalf may post a security (Sec 12 Rule 57). 2.- party
whose property is attached may show that the order of attachment was
improperly or irregularly issued. Under the 1 st manner (which is what is
applicable in this case), the mere filing of a counter-bond (security)
discharges the attachment.

1. WON CA committed an error in affirming the decision of RTC to allow

execution on the counter-bond issued by Security Pacific- NO

FACTS:

PROVISION: RULE 57 SEC 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving

counter-bond.

1. Reynaldo Anzures filed a complaint in RTC against Teresita Villaluz for

BP 22.

RULING + RATIO:

2. Anzures filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Preliminary Attachment, praying

that pending the hearing on the merits of the case, a WPA is to be issued
ordering the sheriff to attach the properties of Villaluz in accordance with
the Rules.

1. NO. When a judgment which has become executory, is returned

unsatisfied, liability of the bond automatically attaches in failure of the
surety to satisfy the judgment against the defendant despite demand
therefore, writ of execution may issue against the surety to enforce the
obligation of the bond. - Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.

3. RTC issued a WPA upon complainants (Anzures) posting of a bond

(P2.1M). Sheriff attached certain properties of Villaluz and were duly
annotated on the corresponding certificates of title.
4. RTC acquitted Villaluz of the crime charged (BP22) but held her civilly
liable. Villaluz appealed but decision was affirmed.
5. The case was elevated to the SC and during its pendency, Villaluz
posted a counter-bond of P2.5M issued by Security Pacific Assurance
Corporation, as well as filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment.
6. SC affirmed CA; Anzures moved for execution of judgment.
7. Pursuant to a writ of execution issued, Sheriff Reynaldo R. Buazon tried
to serve the writ of execution upon Villaluz, but the latter no longer resided
in her given address.
8. Sheriff sent a Notice of Garnishment to Security Pacific Assurance
Corporations office in Makati City, by virtue of the counter-bond posted by
Villaluz with said insurance corporation in the amount of P2.5M but refused
to assume its obligation on the counter-bond it posted for the discharge of
the attachment made by Villaluz on the ground that the bond was not

2. WON CA correct in ruling that the that the mere act of posting the
counter-bond was sufficient to discharge the attachment on the
property (attachment on the property of Villaliz was discharged
without need of court approval of the counter-bond) - YES

Security Pacific was saying that although, it has a surety agreement with
Villaluz, it is one which merely waives its right of excussion. This is
wrong The counter-bond itself states that the parties jointly and
severally bind themselves to secure the payment of any judgment that
the plaintiff may recover against the defendant in the action.
In a contract of suretyship, surety agrees to be answerable directly,
primarily and absolutely to the principals debt, default or miscarriage of
another. This means that the surety is equally bound with the principal
regardless of his interest in the obligation or receipt of benefits. Security
Pacific therefore cannot deny liability as a surety.
2. YES, CA correct in ruling that attachment discharged without need of
court approval
There are two (2) ways to secure the discharge of an attachment. 1. - the
party whose property has been attached or a person appearing on his
behalf may post a security (Sec 12 Rule 57). 2.- party whose property is
attached may show that the order of attachment was improperly or
irregularly issued.

The mere filing of the counter-attachment bond by Villaluz has discharged

the attachment on the properties and made the petitioner corporation liable
on the counter-attachment bond.
This can be gleaned from the DEFENDANTS BOND FOR THE
DISSOLUTION OF ATTACHMENT, which states that Security Pacific
Assurance Corporation, as surety, in consideration of the dissolution
of the said attachment jointly and severally, binds itself with petitioner

Villaluz for any judgment that may be recovered by private respondent

Anzures against petitioner Villaluz.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 16 June 2000 and 22 August
2000, respectively, are both AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.