Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    RULE 60 DBP vs. Carpio, February 1, 2017

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    DBP filed a motion to call on the plaintiff's surety bond after the plaintiff failed to deliver certificates of title pursuant to a writ of execution. The RTC and CA denied the motion, applying Section 20 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court which requires a claimant to secure a favorable judgment in the main action before recovering damages on a replevin bond. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the CA did not err in its strict application of the rules of procedure to resolve the issue. Under Section 10 of Rule 60, damages on a replevin bond are claimed and awarded according to Section 20 of Rule 57, which necessitates satisfying certain requirements before recovering damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    RULE 60 DBP vs. Carpio, February 1, 2017

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    39 views1 page
    DBP filed a motion to call on the plaintiff's surety bond after the plaintiff failed to deliver certificates of title pursuant to a writ of execution. The RTC and CA denied the motion, applying Section 20 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court which requires a claimant to secure a favorable judgment in the main action before recovering damages on a replevin bond. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the CA did not err in its strict application of the rules of procedure to resolve the issue. Under Section 10 of Rule 60, damages on a replevin bond are claimed and awarded according to Section 20 of Rule 57, which necessitates satisfying certain requirements before recovering damages.

    Original Title

    62. RULE 60 DBP vs. Carpio, February 1, 2017

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    DBP filed a motion to call on the plaintiff's surety bond after the plaintiff failed to deliver certificates of title pursuant to a writ of execution. The RTC and CA denied the motion, applying Section 20 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court which requires a claimant to secure a favorable judgment in the main action before recovering damages on a replevin bond. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the CA did not err in its strict application of the rules of procedure to resolve the issue. Under Section 10 of Rule 60, damages on a replevin bond are claimed and awarded according to Section 20 of Rule 57, which necessitates satisfying certain requirements before recovering damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views1 page

    RULE 60 DBP vs. Carpio, February 1, 2017

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    DBP filed a motion to call on the plaintiff's surety bond after the plaintiff failed to deliver certificates of title pursuant to a writ of execution. The RTC and CA denied the motion, applying Section 20 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court which requires a claimant to secure a favorable judgment in the main action before recovering damages on a replevin bond. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the CA did not err in its strict application of the rules of procedure to resolve the issue. Under Section 10 of Rule 60, damages on a replevin bond are claimed and awarded according to Section 20 of Rule 57, which necessitates satisfying certain requirements before recovering damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VILLACERAN, Kent-Kent R.

    Section JD-E CIVPRO

    62. RULE 60 DBP vs. Carpio, February 1, 2017

    Section 10

    Facts:
    Abad, et al filed a complaint for delivery of certificate of titles, damages and attorney’s fee as
    against DBP and Guarantee Fund for SME (GFSME) which they alleged that the certificates was
    unlawfully detained by DBP and GFSME that supposed to be for safekeeping pursuant to the loan
    agreement they entered into with DBP. These certificates were turned over to GFSME by DBO since it is
    the guarantee on the loan that became due and demandable based on the guarantee agreement
    between DBP and GFSME.

    RTC issued a Writ of Seizure but later on quashed due to the granted omnibus motion and
    dismissed the case for improper venue which was filed by DBP. Subsequently, Abad, et al filed a petition
    for certiorari and prohibition with the court praying for the nullification and reversal of the order,
    however, dismissed the petition. Afterwards, a Writ of Execution was issued by the RTC which was filed
    by DBP but Abad, et al failed to deliver the certificates of title. Then, DBP filed a motion to call on
    plaintiff’s surety bond which was denied by RTC and CA, hence, this petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the CA erred in its blind adherence and strict application of Section 20 of Rule
    57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to Rule 60 shall be implemented.

    Ruling:
    No. The Supreme Court ruled that CA did not commit reversible error when it applied the rules
    of procedure in resolving the issue at hand. Under Section 10, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court provides that
    in replevin cases, as in receivership and injunction cases, the damages to be awarded to either party
    upon any bond filed by the other shall be claimed, ascertained, and granted in accordance with Section
    20 of Rule 57 provides for the Claim for damages on account of illegal attachment.

    In other words, to recover damages on a replevin bond or on a bond for preliminary attachment,
    injunction or receivership, it is necessary (1) that the defendant-claimant has secured a favorable
    judgment in the main action, meaning that the plaintiff has no cause of action and was not, therefore,
    entitled to the provisional remedy of replevin; (2) that the application for damages, showing claimant's
    right thereto and the amount thereof, be filed in the same action before trial or before appeal is
    perfected or before the judgment becomes executory; (3) that due notice be given to the other party
    and his surety or sureties, notice to the principal not being sufficient; and (4) that there should be a
    proper hearing and the award for damages should be included in the final judgment.

    Hence, the petition was denied.

    You might also like