Cajefe v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mariano Cojuangco filed a complaint for forcible entry against Eugenio Bardaje, Cecilio Cajefe, and Damaso Cajefe. A preliminary injunction was issued, placing Cojuangco in possession, upon his posting of a P600.00 bond. The defendants posted a counter-bond of P1,200.00 with Bernardo Orosa and Feliciana Bardaje as sureties, leading to the dissolution of the injunction and the defendants' continued possession. Procedural History: The Justice of the Peace Court rendered judgment in favor of Cojuangco, ordering the defendants to restore possession and pay damages and attorney's fees. Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). No motion for immediate execution was filed, and defendants retained possession pending appeal. The CFI rendered judgment on February 19, 1958, declaring Cojuangco the lawful possessor and ordering defendants to vacate and pay damages. Defendants received the decision on February 23, 1958, and did not appeal. The judgment became final and executory. The Petition: Cojuangco moved for execution on July 12, 1958. The sheriff could not find sufficient properties of the defendants. Cojuangco then filed an ex parte petition for execution against the counterbond, which the court granted. Defendants moved for reconsideration, arguing lack of notice and that the bond was only for the preliminary injunction, not the final award of damages. Reconsideration was denied. A petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-14831) was dismissed. The provincial sheriff advertised a public auction sale of the sureties' properties for July 28, 1959. To enjoin this sale, defendants and their bondsmen filed the present petition for prohibition. The sale, however, proceeded on July 28, 1959.
Issue(s)
Whether the writ of execution against the counterbond was valid. Whether the public auction sale conducted pursuant to the writ of execution was valid. Whether prohibition is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The Court ruled that the writ of execution against the petitioners' counterbond is null and void for having been issued without notice to the defendants' sureties and after the judgment on the merits had already become final and executory. Consequently, the execution sale conducted by the provincial sheriff pursuant to this void writ is also null and void and must be set aside. The Court held that prohibition, while generally preventive, can be considered as certiorari in this instance to annul the void writ and sale.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the writ of execution against the counterbond: The Court held that the writ of execution against the counterbond was null and void. This is because the writ was issued without notice to the sureties and after the judgment had become final and executory. The Court applied the doctrine in Alliance Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Edmundo S. Piccio, et al., stating that for a surety to be held liable for damages awarded in the main decision, notice must be given either before trial or, at the latest, before the entry of final judgment, so that the award of damages against them may be included in the final judgment, pursuant to Sections 9 and 20 of Rule 60 and Rule 59 of the Rules of Court. The Court clarified that the distinction between bonds posted to obtain an injunction and counterbonds to lift an injunction is not warranted, as Section 9 of Rule 60 is broad enough to cover both. The Court emphasized that even if sureties are aware of a claim for damages, they are entitled to notice and a hearing on the question of damages before a final judgment against them is rendered. The Court distinguished this from counterbonds in attachment cases, where the liability is ascertainable after the judgment has become final. On the validity of the public auction sale: Since the writ of execution against the counterbond was declared null and void, the public auction sale conducted by the provincial sheriff pursuant to this void writ was also deemed completely null and void and must be set aside. The Court reasoned that an act performed under a void order is itself void. The sale was an enforcement of a judgment that was improperly executed against the sureties without due process. On the propriety of prohibition as a remedy: While prohibition is generally a preventive remedy, the Court held that it could be considered as a petition for certiorari in this case. The Court stated that the title of a pleading is not controlling, but rather its substance and averments. Given that the petition sought to annul the writ of execution and the subsequent public auction sale, it could be treated as a petition for certiorari to achieve this purpose, in the interest of justice. The Court cited its own jurisprudence where petitions styled as one remedy were treated as another when the facts warranted it.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution against a counterbond posted to lift a preliminary injunction is null and void if issued without notice to the sureties and after the judgment has become final and executory. The subsequent public auction sale conducted pursuant to such void writ is also null and void.