Aquino v. Socorro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 14, 1964, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Francisco Socorro (Socorro), restraining Zacarias C. Aquino (Aquino) from entering, cutting, hauling, selling, and/or exporting logs from a disputed forest area. Socorro posted a P1,000 bond. Procedural History: Aquino posted a counterbond of P2,000, leading to the dissolution of the writ. Subsequently, the CA dismissed Socorro's petition for lack of jurisdiction. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Before the CA decision became final, Aquino filed a claim for damages amounting to P199,000 due to the alleged wrongful issuance of the writ. The CA denied Aquino's claim, finding no bad faith or malice on Socorro's part. Aquino's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Aquino filed a petition for certiorari to review the CA's denial of his claim for damages, contending that the CA erred in requiring proof of bad faith and malice.
Issue(s)
Whether proof of bad faith and malice is a prerequisite for recovering damages resulting from the improvident issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in denying Aquino's claim for damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the necessity of proving malice depends on whether the claimant is suing 'on the bond' or 'beyond the bond.' Applying the ruling in Pacis v. The Commission on Elections (29 SCRA 25), the Court stated that for recovery 'upon the bond,' malice is not an element because the bond is a statutory undertaking intended to answer for all damages sustained by reason of a wrongfully obtained injunction. If malice were required for the bond, the filing of the bond would become a 'useless formality.' However, the Court emphasized that Section 9, Rule 58 limits recovery only 'upon the bond,' which serves as the only security and protection conceded by the rules. In this case, Aquino sought damages of P199,000, which significantly exceeded the P1,000 bond posted by Socorro. Following the principle in Molina v. Somes (24 Phil. 66), any claim for damages beyond the amount of the bond must be governed by the law on malicious prosecution. Therefore, because Aquino pursued a claim for damages that was effectively independent of and exceeded the bond, he was required to prove that Socorro acted with malice and without probable cause. Since Aquino failed to allege or prove these essential elements, his claim for damages was properly denied.
Main Doctrine
Recovery of damages for the improvident issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is generally limited to the injunction bond filed by the applicant, unless the applicant acted with malice and without probable cause, in which case an independent action for damages may be pursued.