Fabella v. Tancinco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a civil case where plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the petitioner, Tomas T. Fabella, for P4,050 plus interest and costs. The petitioner did not appeal this initial judgment. 2. Procedural History: Following the initial judgment, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the judgment, which was granted, leading to a new trial. In this second trial, the petitioner again lost, and a new judgment was rendered against him for P12,400 plus interest. After this second judgment became final, the court ordered the execution of the judgment and the confiscation of a bond posted by the petitioner. The petitioner's subsequent motions to set aside these orders were denied by the lower court. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks annulment of two orders from the Court of First Instance of Manila through a petition for certiorari. The first order, dated September 21, 1949, ordered the confiscation of the petitioner's bond to be applied to the judgment. The second order, dated November 4, 1949, denied the petitioner's motion to set aside the order of August 30, 1949, which had denied reconsideration of the second judgment. The petitioner argues that the confiscation of the bond was illegal due to procedural defects and that the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment was an abuse of discretion, citing excusable negligence on the part of his clerk for the late filing of his motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the order confiscating the bond posted for a preliminary injunction to stay execution was valid. Whether the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the second judgment, filed beyond the reglementary period, was proper. Whether the subsequent petition to set aside the order denying reconsideration, based on excusable negligence, should have been granted.
Ruling
The Supreme Court revoked the order confiscating the bond but affirmed the order denying the motion to set aside the order of denial of reconsideration of the judgment. The Court held that the bond posted for a preliminary injunction under Section 5 of Rule 38 is not answerable for the amount of the judgment sought to be set aside, and damages must be claimed, ascertained, and awarded after proper hearing. However, the Court found that the motion for reconsideration of the second judgment was filed out of time and that the subsequent petition to set aside the denial, based on excusable negligence, was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which was not shown to have been abused.
Ratio Decidendi
On the confiscation of the bond: The Court held that the bond posted under Section 5 of Rule 38, for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to stay execution pending a petition to set aside a judgment, is not answerable for the amount of the judgment sought to be set aside. Such a bond's condition is to pay damages and costs incurred by reason of the injunction or subsequent proceedings if the petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on trial. The damages recoverable on such a bond must be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the procedure prescribed in Section 20 of Rule 58, which requires an application, proper hearing, and due notice to the other party and the surety. The respondent judge disregarded this procedure by ordering the confiscation and application of the bond to the judgment without a hearing on the damages and without notice to the surety, merely assuming damages in the amount of the bond. Therefore, this order was illegal and revoked. On the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the second judgment: The Court found that the defendant's motion for reconsideration of the second judgment was filed 33 days after notification, which was beyond the reglementary period for filing such a motion. Consequently, the judgment had already become final, and the motion for reconsideration was properly denied by the court below. The Court noted that the motion was merely pro forma, based on a general statement that the decision was contrary to law and evidence, without specifying errors. On the denial of the petition to set aside the order of denial: The Court acknowledged that a petition for reconsideration based on excusable negligence is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. While the defendant alleged that the tardiness in filing the first motion was due to the sickness and absence of his clerk, the Court found no clear abuse of discretion in the respondent judge's refusal to set aside the order denying reconsideration. The Court distinguished this case from precedents where judgments were obtained by default, emphasizing that the judgment sought to be set aside here was rendered after a regular trial. Furthermore, the initial motion for reconsideration lacked a prima facie showing of error, and nothing was stated regarding the reason for the delay at that time. The Court concluded that, considering all circumstances, it could not be said that the respondent judge did not make a good use of his discretion.
Main Doctrine
A bond posted for a preliminary injunction to stay execution pending a petition to set aside a judgment, under Section 5 of Rule 38, is not answerable for the amount of the judgment sought to be set aside. Damages recoverable on such a bond must be claimed, ascertained, and awarded after proper application and hearing, with due notice to the surety.