Scribd
Upload
80 views1 page

Phil British Corp V Iac

1. Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc. filed a collection case against Varian Industrial Corporation. During the case, some of Varian's properties were attached. Varian posted a counter bond through Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. to lift the attachment. 2. The trial court ruled in favor of Sycwin. Varian appealed but Sycwin filed for execution pending appeal. The appellate court granted Sycwin's petition. Philippine British Assurance Co. challenged this ruling. 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge. It held that a counter bond covers execution of a judgment pending appeal, not just a final judgment. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish

Uploaded by

Benitez Gherold
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views1 page

Phil British Corp V Iac

1. Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc. filed a collection case against Varian Industrial Corporation. During the case, some of Varian's properties were attached. Varian posted a counter bond through Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. to lift the attachment. 2. The trial court ruled in favor of Sycwin. Varian appealed but Sycwin filed for execution pending appeal. The appellate court granted Sycwin's petition. Philippine British Assurance Co. challenged this ruling. 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge. It held that a counter bond covers execution of a judgment pending appeal, not just a final judgment. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish

Uploaded by

Benitez Gherold
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Philippine British Assurance v. Intermediate Appelate Court Case No. 234 G.R. No.

L-72005 (May 29, 1987) FACTS: 1. 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. 2. During the pendency of the suit, private respondent succeeded in attaching some of the properties of Varian Industrial Corporation upon the posting of supersede as bond. 3. The latter in turn posted a counter bond in the sum of P1,400,000.00 thru petitioner Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc., so the attached properties were released. 4. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Sycwin. 5. Varian Industrial Corporation appealed the decision to the respondent Court. 6. Sycwin then filed a petition for execution pending appeal against the properties of Varian in respondent Court. 7. The respondent Court granted the petition of Sycwin. 8. Varian, thru its insurer and petitioner herein, raised the issue to the Supreme Court. 9. A temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents from enforcing the order complaint of was issued. ISSUE: Whether or not an order of execution pending appeal of any judgment maybe enforced on the counter bond of the petitioner. HELD: YES. Petition was dismissed for lack of merit and the restraining order dissolved with costs against petitioner. RATIO: 1. It is well recognized rule that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The rule therefore, is that the counter bond 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 judgment but also the execution of a judgment pending appeal. 6. The counter bond was issued in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. The only logical conclusion is that an execution of any judgment including one pending appeal if returned unsatisfied may be charged against such counter bond. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish
Page 1 of 1

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy