Santos v. Moir
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Isidoro Santos, et al. (petitioners) initiated an action to require the redemption of parcels of land sold under execution. A cross-complaint was filed by Isidoro Santos, who, with Eusebio and Angeles as sureties, obtained a preliminary injunction restraining the plaintiff from exercising acts of ownership over the lands. The injunction was dissolved by the final judgment of the Court of First Instance, which was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court and returned for execution. Procedural History: After the affirmance and return of the judgment, the successful party filed an application for damages allegedly caused by the improper issuance and execution of the injunction order. Objections were raised on the grounds that the application should have been made during the trial and included in the final judgment, as per Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the Court of First Instance lacked authority to hear the application at that time. The Petition: The present action seeks to prohibit the Court of First Instance of Pampanga from proceeding with the application for damages, arguing that the right to such damages was waived by failing to include them in the final judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to include damages arising from the execution of a preliminary injunction in the final judgment, despite a reservation in the judgment, constitutes a waiver of the right to claim such damages. Whether a judgment that contains a reservation for the presentation of damages is considered final and appealable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court permanently prohibited the Court of First Instance of Pampanga from proceeding with the action for damages. Costs were against Luisa Liwanag, as administratrix.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of waiver of damages due to failure to include them in the final judgment: The Court held that Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that damages arising from a preliminary injunction must be ascertained by the court trying the action and included in the final judgment, both against the plaintiff and the sureties. The purpose of this provision is to prevent multiplicity of suits and to settle all justiciable phases of a dispute in one action and one judgment. Failure to comply with this requirement results in the waiver of the right to damages. The Court emphasized that the successful party cannot wait until the principal cause is terminated, appealed, affirmed, and returned for execution before presenting a claim for damages. The reservation in the judgment did not suspend its finality but merely provided an opportunity to exercise the right to damages before the judgment passed beyond the court's control. Since the application was made after the judgment became final and beyond the court's control, the right to damages was lost. On the finality and appealability of the judgment with a reservation: The Court ruled that the judgment was final and appealable despite the reservation. The reservation did not pertain to the merits of the case, which were complete, but only to an incident (damages) that could have been disregarded without affecting the merits. The reservation gave the successful party the right to have the judgment opened to include damages, but it did not suspend the judgment's effect or prevent the period for the court to lose control over it from running. The fact that an appeal was taken without objection, and that the Supreme Court took cognizance of it, implied that the judgment was considered final and appealable. A suspended judgment is not appealable. Therefore, the reservation did not operate to keep the judgment open indefinitely or suspend its finality.
Main Doctrine
Failure to include claims for damages arising from the execution of a preliminary injunction in the final judgment, as required by Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure, results in the waiver of such claims, even if the judgment contained a reservation for the presentation of such damages, if that reservation is not acted upon before the judgment becomes final and beyond the control of the court.