Philippine British Assurance
Co., Inc. vs IAC et.al., G.R. No. 72005, May 29, 1987
Subject: Statutory Construction
FACTS
This is a Petition for Review on
certiorari of the Resolution dated September 12, 1985, of the Intermediate
Appellate Court in AC-G.R. No. CR-05409 granting private respondent's motion
for execution pending appeal and ordering the issuance of the corresponding
writ of execution on the counterbond to lift attachment filed by petitioner.
The records disclose that private
respondent Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc., filed a complaint for collection
of a sum of money against Varian Industrial Corporation before the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City. During the pendency of the suit, private respondent
succeeded in attaching some of the properties of Varian Industrial Corporation
upon the posting of a supersedeas bond. The latter in turn posted a counterbond
in the sum of P1,400, 000.00 thru petitioner Philippine British Assurance Co.,
Inc., so the attached properties were released.
Varian Industrial Corporation
appealed the decision to the respondent Court. Sycwin then filed a petition for
execution pending appeal against the properties of Varian in respondent Court.
Varian was required to file its comment, but none was filed. In the Resolution
of July 5, 1985, respondent Court ordered the execution pending appeal as
prayed for. However, the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied as Varian
failed to deliver the previously attached personal properties upon demand. In a
Petition dated August 13, 1985, filed with respondent Court Sycwin prayed that
the surety (herein petitioner) be ordered to pay the value of its bond. In
compliance with the Resolution of August 23, 1985, of the respondent Court herein
petitioner filed its comment. In the Resolution of September 12, 1985, the
respondent Court granted the petition. Hence this action.
ISSUE
Whether or not an order of
execution pending appeal of a judgment maybe enforced on the said bond.
RULING
No, an order of execution pending
appeal of a judgment cannot be enforced on the said bond.
It is well recognized rule that
where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Ubi lex
non distinguish nec nos distinguere debemos." The rule, founded on
logic, is a corollary of the principle that general words and phrases in a
statute should ordinarily be accorded their natural and general significance.
The rule requires that a general term or phrase should not be reduced into
parts and one part distinguished from the other so as to justify its exclusion
from the operation of the law. In other words, there should be no distinction
in the application of a statute where none is indicated. For courts are not
authorized to distinguish where the law makes no distinction. They should
instead administer the law not as they think it ought to be but as they find it
and without regard to consequences.
In this case, the counterbond was
issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court
as provided in the second paragraph a forecited which is deemed reproduced as
part of the counterbond. In the third paragraph it is also stipulated that the
counterbond is to be "applied for the payment of the judgment."
Neither the rules nor the provisions of the counterbond limited its application
to a final and executory judgment. Indeed, it is specified that it applies to
the payment of any judgment that maybe recovered by plaintiff. Thus, the only
logical conclusion is that an execution of any judgment including one pending
appeal if returned unsatisfied maybe charged against such a counterbond. The
rule, therefore, is that the counterbond to lift attachment that is issued in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 57, of the Rules of Court,
shall be charged with the payment of any judgment that is returned unsatisfied.
It covers not only a final and executory judgement but also the execution of a
judgment pending appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment