Visayan Surety v. Lacson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In Civil Case No. 1313-P, Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation (Visayan Surety) was ordered to pay damages to Isaac Lacson and Carmen P. de Lacson due to the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Visayan Surety filed a petition for certiorari to annul this order, asserting abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction. Procedural History: The respondent judge granted a preliminary injunction in the case of Dy Kho vs. Isaac Lacson et al. upon the filing of a P1,500 bond by Dy Kho as principal and Visayan Surety as surety. Subsequently, the case was dismissed, and the injunction dissolved by an order dated November 8, 1952. The Lacsons received notice of this order on November 10, 1952. On November 12, 1952, they filed a motion to set a date for the presentation of evidence of damages, but no copy was served on the surety. This motion was denied for being insufficient. On February 23, 1953, the Lacsons again prayed for a date to present evidence of damages, and on March 10, 1953, they supplemented their petition, praying for the assessment of damages suffered due to the injunction. Copies of these petitions were served on Dy Kho and Visayan Surety. Pursuant to these, the respondent judge heard evidence and, in an order dated November 28, 1953, awarded P26,750 in damages payable by Dy Kho and P1,500 in damages chargeable to the bond subscribed by Visayan Surety. The Petition: Visayan Surety filed a petition for certiorari with prohibition and injunction, asserting that the order awarding damages against it was issued with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction, as the judgment had already become final before the Lacsons sought to claim damages against the surety.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or without jurisdiction in awarding damages against the surety after the judgment had become final. Whether the Lacsons' claim for damages against the surety was timely filed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation. The order of the respondent judge dated November 28, 1953, awarding damages against the surety, was revoked.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the claim for damages against the surety: The Court reiterated the established rule that a claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a preliminary injunction must be presented in the principal action and included in the final judgment. The remedy is exclusive, and failure to file a motion for the determination of damages in time, while the judgment is still under the control of the court, results in the claimant losing the right to such damages. In this case, the order of dismissal and dissolution of the injunction became final and executory on or before December 15, 1952. The Lacsons' motion for damages against the surety was filed for the first time on March 10, 1953, which was approximately three months after the judgment had become final and executory. Therefore, the respondent judge no longer had jurisdiction to amend the judgment to include damages against the surety. On the effect of the Lacsons' motions: The Lacsons claimed they filed a motion for damages on November 12, 1952, before the judgment became final. However, the Court noted that no copy of this pleading was served upon the surety. Consequently, this motion was considered a "useless piece of paper" and could not serve as a basis for interrupting the period for appeal or for claiming damages, especially since no appeal was interposed from its denial. The subsequent motion on March 10, 1953, while served on the surety, was filed long after the judgment had become final, rendering the court without jurisdiction to act upon it. The Court also dismissed the argument that the surety was guilty of laches or estopped by failing to oppose the March 10, 1953 motion, stating that mere silence cannot confer jurisdiction that the court had already lost.
Main Doctrine
A claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a preliminary injunction must be presented in the principal action and included in the final judgment. Failure to file a motion for the determination of damages while the judgment is still under the court's control results in the loss of the right to such damages.