CRIMPRO RULE 127

Title GR No. 144740

Date: August 31, 2005
SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE CORP v. TRIA – Ponente: CHICO - NAZARIO , J.
INFANTE
Security Pacific Assurance Corporation – Petitioner Hon. Judge Amelia Tria-Infante, People of the Philippines
respresented by Spouses Reynaldo and Zenaida Anzures, and
Reynaldo R. Buazon, in his official capacity as Sheriff IV,
RTC Branch 9, Manila – Respondents
Nature of the case: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the CA declaring that there was no
grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Judge in issuing the assailed order dated 31 March 2000
FACTS
Reynaldo Azures filed a complaint in the RTC against Teresita Villaluz for violation of B.P. 22. Anzures then filed an Ex-Parte
Motion for Preliminary Attachment praying the pending the hearing on the merits of the case, a Writ of Preliminary
Attachment be issued ordering the Sheriff to attach the properties of Villaluz in accordance with the Rules of Court. The RTC
issued a WPA upon Anzures’ posting of a bail bond in the amount of 2.1M pesos. The Sheriff them attached certain properties of
Villaluz and were duly annotated on the corresponding certificates of title. Villaluz was acquitted of the crime charged but the
Court held her to be civilly liable. Vilalluz appealed but the decision was affirmed.

The case was elevated to the SC and during its pendency, Villaluz posted a counter-bond of 2.5M pesos issued by Security
Pacific Assurance Corporation and also filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment. The SC affirmed the decision of the
CA. Anzures then moved for the execution of judgment.

Pursuant to the Writ of Execution issued, Sheriff Reynaldo Buazon tried to serve the Writ of Execution upon Villaluz, but the
latter no longer resided in her given address. Buazon then sent a Notice of Garnishment to Security Pacific Assurance
Corporation’s office in Makati, by virtue of the counter-bond posted by Villaluz with the said corporation but the latter refused to
assume its obligation on the counter-bond it posted on the ground that the bond was not approved by the SC and that the condition
by which the bond was issued did not happen.
ISSUE/S
(1) w/n the CA committed an error in affirming the decision of the RTC to allow the execution on the counter-bond issued
by Security Pacific – N0
(2) w/n the CA was correct in ruling that the mere act of posting the counter-bond was sufficient to discharge the attachment
on the property, without the need of the court’s approval of the counter-bond – YES

RATIO
(1) When a judgment which has become executory is returned unsatisfied, the liability of the bond AUTOMATICALLY ATTACHES
upon the failure of the surety to satisfy the judgment against the defendant despite demand therefore. A Writ of Execution may issue
against the surety to enforce the obligation of the bond. Security Pacific contends that although it has a surety agreement with Villaluz, it is
one which merely waives its right of excussion. (waiver of the right to have all properties of the debtor exhausted first before it can be
compelled to pay) 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, the surety agrees to
answer directly, primarily, and absolutely to the principal’s 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) There are two 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 as provided by Sec 12 Rule 27; (2) the party whose property is attached may show
that the order of attachment was improperly or irregularly issued. Under the first manner, which is applicable in this case, THE
MERE FILING OF A COUNTER-BOND AS SECURITY DISCHARGES THE ATTACHMENT. This can be gleaned from
the defendant’s bond for the dissolution of attachment which states that Security Pacific 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.

RULING
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.
Notes
Section 12, Rule 57:

SEC. 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving counter-bond. After a writ of attachment has been
enforced, the party whose property has been attached, or the person appearing on his behalf, may move
for the discharge of the attachment wholly or in part on the security given. The court shall, after due
notice and hearing, order the discharge of the attachment if the movant makes a cash deposit, or files a
counter-bond executed to the attaching party with the clerk of the court where the application is made, in
an amount equal to that fixed by the court in the order of attachment, exclusive of costs. But if the
attachment is sought to be discharged with respect to a particular property, the counter-bond shall be
equal to the value of that property as determined by the court. In either case, the cash deposit or the
counter-bond shall secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the action.
A notice of the deposit shall forthwith be served on the attaching party. Upon the discharge of an
attachment in accordance with the provisions of this section, the property attached, or the proceeds of any
sale thereof, shall be delivered to the party making the deposit or giving the counter-bond, or to the person
appearing on his behalf, the deposit or counter-bond aforesaid standing in place of the property so
released. Should such counter-bond for any reason be found to be or become insufficient, and the party
furnishing the same fail to file an additional counter-bond, the attaching party may apply for a new order
of attachment.

2-S 2016-17 (BUSTAMANTE)