Republic of the Philippines Yu filed an Urgent Motion to Dissolve Writ of Preliminary

SUPREME COURT Attachment.15 They also filed a Claim Against Surety Bond16 in
Manila which they demanded payment from Visayan Surety and
Insurance Corporation (Visayan Surety), the surety which issued
THIRD DIVISION the attachment bond, of the sum of ₱594,240.00, representing
the damages they allegedly sustained as a consequence of the
G.R. No. 155868 February 6, 2007 wrongful attachment of their properties.

SPOUSES GREGORIO and JOSEFA YU, Petitioners, While the RTC did not resolve the Claim Against Surety Bond, it
vs. issued an Order17 dated May 3, 1993, discharging from
NGO YET TE, doing business under the name and style, attachment the Toyota Ford Fierra, jeep, and Canter delivery
ESSENTIAL MANUFACTURING, Respondent. van on humanitarian grounds, but maintaining custody of Lot
No. 11 and the passenger bus. Spouses Yu filed a Motion for
Reconsideration18 which the RTC denied.19
DECISION

Dissatisfied, they filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari,20

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 31230, in which a Decision21 was
rendered on September 14, 1993, lifting the RTC Order of
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
Attachment on their remaining properties. It reads in part:
the Rules of Court assailing the March 21, 2001 Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 522462 and its October
In the case before Us, the complaint and the accompanying
14, 2002 Resolution.3
affidavit in support of the application for the writ only contains
general averments. Neither pleading states in particular how
The antecedent facts are not disputed.
the fraud was committed or the badges of fraud purportedly
committed by the petitioners to establish that the latter never
Spouses Gregorio and Josefa Yu (Spouses Yu) purchased from had an intention to pay the obligation; neither is there a
Ngo Yet Te (Te) bars of detergent soap worth ₱594,240.00, and statement of the particular acts committed to show that the
issued to the latter three postdated checks 4 as payment of the petitioners are in fact disposing of their properties to defraud
purchase price. When Te presented the checks at maturity for creditors. x x x.
encashment, said checks were returned dishonored and
stamped "ACCOUNT CLOSED".5 Te demanded6 payment from
xxxx
Spouses Yu but the latter did not heed her demands. Acting
through her son and attorney-in-fact, Charry Sy (Sy), Te filed
Moreover, at the hearing on the motion to discharge the order
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 75, Valenzuela,
of attachment x x x petitioners presented evidence showing
Metro Manila, a Complaint,7 docketed as Civil Case No. 4061-V-
that private respondent has been extending multi-million peso
93, for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages with Prayer
credit facilities to the petitioners for the past seven years and
for Preliminary Attachment.
that the latter have consistently settled their obligations. This
was not denied by private respondent. Neither does the private
In support of her prayer for preliminary attachment, Te
respondent contest the petitioners’ allegations that they have
attached to her Complaint an Affidavit executed by Sy that
been recently robbed of properties of substantial value, hence
Spouses Yu were guilty of fraud in entering into the purchase
their inability to pay on time. By the respondent court’s own
agreement for they never intended to pay the contract price,
pronouncements, it appears that the order of attachment was
and that, based on reliable information, they were about to
upheld because of the admitted financial reverses the petitioner
move or dispose of their properties to defraud their creditors. 8
is undergoing.

Upon Te’s posting of an attachment bond,9 the RTC issued an

This is reversible error. Insolvency is not a ground for
Order of Attachment/Levy10 dated March 29, 1993 on the basis
attachment especially when defendant has not been shown to
of which Sheriff Constancio Alimurung (Sheriff Alimurung) of
have committed any act intended to defraud its creditors x x x.
RTC, Branch 19, Cebu City levied and attached Spouses Yu’s
properties in Cebu City consisting of one parcel of land (known
For lack of factual basis to justify its issuance, the writ of
as Lot No. 11)11 and four units of motor vehicle, specifically, a
preliminary attachment issued by the respondent court was
Toyota Ford Fierra, a jeep, a Canter delivery van, and a
improvidently issued and should be discharged.22
passenger bus.12

From said CA Decision, Te filed a Motion for Reconsideration

On April 21, 1993, Spouses Yu filed an Answer13 with
but to no avail.23
counterclaim for damages arising from the wrongful
attachment of their properties, specifically, actual damages
amounting to ₱1,500.00 per day; moral damages, Te filed with us a Petition for Review on Certiorari24 but we
₱1,000,000.00; and exemplary damages, ₱50,000.00. They also denied the same in a Resolution dated June 8, 1994 for having
sought payment of ₱120,000.00 as attorney’s fees and been filed late and for failure to show that a reversible error
₱80,000.00 as litigation expenses.14 On the same date, Spouses was committed by the CA.25 Entry of Judgment of our June 8,
1994 Resolution was made on July 22, 1994.26 Thus, the finding (3) This Court hereby reiterates in toto its Decision in this case
of the CA in its September 14, 1993 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. dated July 20, 1994. 30 (Emphasis ours)
31230 on the wrongfulness of the attachment/levy of the
properties of Spouses Yu became conclusive and binding. The RTC also issued an Order dated December 2, 1994,31 denying
the Motion for Reconsideration of Spouses Yu.32
However, on July 20, 1994, the RTC, apparently not informed of
the SC Decision, rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of In the same December 2, 1994 Order, the RTC granted two
which reads: motions filed by Te, a Motion to Correct and to Include Specific
Amount for Interest and a Motion for Execution Pending
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds that the Appeal.33 The RTC also denied Spouses Yu’s Notice of Appeal34
plaintiff has established a valid civil cause of action against the from the July 20, 1994 Decision and August 9, 1994 Order of the
defendants, and therefore, renders this judgment in favor of RTC.
the plaintiff and against the defendants, and hereby orders the
following: From said December 2, 1994 RTC Order, Spouses Yu filed
another Notice of Appeal 35 which the RTC also denied in an
1) Defendants are hereby ordered or directed to pay the Order36 dated January 5, 1995.
plaintiff the sum of ₱549,404.00, with interest from the date of
the filing of this case (March 3, 1993); Spouses Yu filed with the CA a Petition37 for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 36205,
2) The Court, for reasons aforestated, hereby denies the grant questioning the denial of their Notices of Appeal; and seeking
of damages to the plaintiff; the modification of the July 20, 1994 Decision and the issuance
of a Writ of Execution. The CA granted the Petition in a
3) The Court hereby adjudicates a reasonable attorney’s fees Decision38 dated June 22, 1995.
and litigation expenses of ₱10,000.00 in favor of the plaintiff;
Hence, Spouses Yu filed with the CA an appeal39 docketed as
4) On the counterclaim, this Court declines to rule on this, CA-G.R. CV No. 52246, questioning only that portion of the July
considering that the question of the attachment which 20, 1994 Decision where the RTC declined to rule on their
allegedly gave rise to the damages incurred by the defendants counterclaim for damages.40 However, Spouses Yu did not
is being determined by the Supreme Court. dispute the specific monetary awards granted to respondent
Te; and therefore, the same have become final and executory.
SO ORDERED.27 (Emphasis ours)
Although in the herein assailed Decision41 dated March 21, 2001,
Spouses Yu filed with the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration28 the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision, it nonetheless made a
questioning the disposition of their counterclaim. They also filed ruling on the counterclaim of Spouses Yu by declaring that the
a Manifestation29 informing the RTC of our June 8, 1994 latter had failed to adduce sufficient evidence of their
Resolution in G.R. No. 114700. entitlement to damages.

The RTC issued an Order dated August 9, 1994, which read: Spouses Yu filed a Motion for Reconsideration42 but the CA
denied it in the herein assailed Resolution43 dated October 14,
2002.
xxxx

Spouses Yu filed the present Petition raising the following

(2) With regard the counter claim filed by the defendants
issues:
against the plaintiff for the alleged improvident issuance of this
Court thru its former Presiding Judge (Honorable Emilio
Leachon, Jr.), the same has been ruled with definiteness by the I. Whether or not the appellate court erred in not holding that
Supreme Court that, indeed, the issuance by the Court of the the writ of attachment was procured in bad faith, after it was
writ of preliminary attachment appears to have been established by final judgment that there was no true ground
improvidently done, but nowhere in the decision of the therefor.
Supreme Court and for that matter, the Court of Appeal’s
decision which was in effect sustained by the High Court, II. Whether or not the appellate court erred in refusing to award
contains any ruling or directive or imposition, of any damages actual, moral and exemplary damages after it was established
to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, in other words, by final judgment that the writ of attachment was procured
both the High Court and the CA, merely declared the previous with no true ground for its issuance.44
issuance of the writ of attachment by this Court thru its former
presiding judge to be improvidently issued, but it did not award There is one preliminary matter to set straight before we
any damages of any kind to the defendants, hence, unless the resolve the foregoing issues.
High Court or the CA rules on this, this Court coud not grant any
damages by virtue of the improvident attachment made by this According to respondent Te,45 regardless of the evidence
Court thru its former presiding judge, which was claimed by the presented by Spouses Yu, their counterclaim was correctly
defendants in their counter claim. dismissed for failure to comply with the procedure laid down in
Section 20 of Rule 57. Te contends that as Visayan Surety was burden of proving the nature and extent of the loss or injury
not notified of the counterclaim, no judgment thereon could be incurred by reason of the wrongful attachment.57
validly rendered.
In fine, the CA finding that the attachment of the properties of
Such argument is not only flawed, it is also specious. Spouses Yu was wrongful did not relieve Spouses Yu of the
burden of proving the factual basis of their counterclaim for
As stated earlier, Spouses Yu filed a Claim Against Surety Bond damages.
on the same day they filed their Answer and Urgent Motion to
Dissolve Writ of Preliminary Attachment.46 Further, the records To merit an award of actual damages arising from a wrongful
reveal that on June 18, 1993, Spouses Yu filed with the RTC a attachment, the attachment defendant must prove, with the
Motion to Give Notice to Surety.47 The RTC granted the Motion best evidence obtainable, the fact of loss or injury suffered and
in an Order48 dated June 23, 1993. Accordingly, Visayan Surety the amount thereof.58 Such loss or injury must be of the kind
was notified of the pre-trial conference to apprise it of a which is not only capable of proof but must actually be proved
pending claim against its attachment bond. Visayan Surety with a reasonable degree of certainty. As to its amount, the
received the notice on July 12, 1993 as shown by a registry same must be measurable based on specific facts, and not on
return receipt attached to the records.49 guesswork or speculation. 59 In particular, if the claim for actual
damages covers unrealized profits, the amount of unrealized
Moreover, even if it were true that Visayan Surety was left in profits must be estalished and supported by independent
the proceedings a quo, such omission is not fatal to the cause of evidence of the mean income of the business undertaking
Spouses Yu. In Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. v. Salas,50 we interrupted by the illegal seizure. 60
held that "x x x if the surety was not given notice when the
claim for damages against the principal in the replevin bond was Spouses Yu insist that the evidence they presented met the
heard, then as a matter of procedural due process the surety is foregoing standards. They point to the lists of their daily net
entitled to be heard when the judgment for damages against income from the operation of said passenger bus based on used
the principal is sought to be enforced against the surety’s ticket stubs61 issued to their passengers. They also cite unused
replevin bond."51 This remedy is applicable for the procedures ticket stubs as proof of income foregone when the bus was
governing claims for damages wrongfully seized.62 They further cite the unrebutted testimony
of Josefa Yu that, in the day-to-day operation of their passenger
on an attachment bond and on a replevin bond are the same.52 bus, they use up at least three ticket stubs and earn a minimum
daily income of ₱1,500.00.63
We now proceed to resolve the issues jointly.
In ruling that Spouses Yu failed to adduce sufficient evidence to
Spouses Yu contend that they are entitled to their counterclaim support their counterclaim for actual damages, the CA stated,
for damages as a matter of right in view of the finality of our thus:
June 8, 1994 Resolution in G.R. No. 114700 which affirmed the
finding of the CA in its September 14, 1993 Decision in CA-G.R. In this case, the actual damages cannot be determined.
SP No. 31230 that respondent Te had wrongfully caused the Defendant-appellant Josefa Yu testified on supposed lost
attachment of their properties. Citing Javellana v. D.O. Plaza profits without clear and appreciable explanation. Despite her
Enterprises, Inc.,53 they argue that they should be awarded submission of the used and unused ticket stubs, there was no
damages based solely on the CA finding that the attachment evidence on the daily net income, the routes plied by the bus
was illegal for it already suggests that Te acted with malice and the average fares for each route. The submitted basis is too
when she applied for attachment. And even if we were to speculative and conjectural. No reports regarding the average
assume that Te did not act with malice, still she should be held actual profits and other evidence of profitability necessary to
liable for the aggravation she inflicted when she applied for prove the amount of actual damages were presented. Thus, the
attachment even when she was clearly not entitled to it.54 Court a quo did not err in not awarding damages in favor of
defendants-appellants.64
That is a rather limited understanding of Javellana. The
counterclaim disputed therein was not for moral damages and We usually defer to the expertise of the CA, especially when it
therefore, there was no need to prove malice. As early as in concurs with the factual findings of the RTC.65 Indeed, findings
Lazatin v. Twaño,55 we laid down the rule that where there is of fact may be passed upon and reviewed by the Supreme Court
wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant may recover in the following instances: (1) when the conclusion is a finding
actual damages even without proof that the attachment grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2)
plaintiff acted in bad faith in obtaining the attachment. when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
However, if it is alleged and established that the attachment impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion in the
was not merely wrongful but also malicious, the attachment appreciation of facts; (4) when judgment is based on a
defendant may recover moral damages and exemplary misapprehension of facts; (5) when the lower court, in making
damages as well. 56 Either way, the wrongfulness of the its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and such
attachment does not warrant the automatic award of damages findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
to the attachment defendant; the latter must first discharge the appellee; (6) when the factual findings of the CA are contrary to
those of the trial court; (7) when the findings of fact are
themselves conflicting; (8) when the findings of fact are
conclusions made without a citation of specific evidence on The testimony of petitioner Josefa Yu herself negates their
which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the claim for moral and exemplary damages. On cross-examination
petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are she testified, thus:
not disputed by the respondents; (10) when the findings of fact
of the lower court are premised on the supposed absence of Q: Did you ever deposit any amount at that time to fund the
evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.66 check?
However, the present case does not fall under any of the
exceptions. We are in full accord with the CA that Spouses Yu A: We requested that it be replaced and staggered into smaller
failed to prove their counterclaim. amounts.

Spouses Yu’s claim for unrealized income of ₱1,500.00 per day COURT: Did you fund it or not?
was based on their computation of their average daily income
for the year 1992. Said computation in turn is based on the value
Atty. Ferrer: The three checks involved?
of three ticket stubs sold over only five separate days in 1992.67
By no stretch of the imagination can we consider ticket sales for
Atty. Florido: Already answered. She said that they were not
five days sufficient evidence of the average daily income of the
able to fund it.
passenger bus, much less its mean income. Not even the
unrebutted testimony of Josefa Yu can add credence to such
evidence for the testimony itself lacks corroboration.68 Atty. Ferrer: And as a matter of fact, you went to the bank to
close your account?
Besides, based on the August 29, 1994 Manifestation69 filed by
Sheriff Alimurung, it would appear that long before the A: We closed account with the bank because we transferred the
passenger bus was placed under preliminary attachment in Civil account to another bank.
Case No. 4061-V-93, the same had been previously attached by
the Sheriff of Mandaue City in connection with another case Q: How much money did you transfer from that bank to which
and that it was placed in the Cebu Bonded Warehousing the three checks were drawn to this new bank?
Corporation, Cebu City. Thus, Spouses Yu cannot complain that
they were unreasonably deprived of the use of the passenger A: I don’t know how much was there but we transferred already
bus by reason of the subsequent wrongful attachment issued in to the Solid Bank.
Civil Case No. 4061-V-93. Nor can they also attribute to the
wrongful attachment their failure to earn income or profit from Q: Who transferred?
the operation of the passenger bus.
A: My daughter, sir.73 (Emphasis ours)
Moreover, petitioners did not present evidence as to the
damages they suffered by reason of the wrongful attachment Based on the foregoing testimony, it is not difficult to
of Lot No. 11. understand why Te concluded that Spouses Yu never intended
to pay their obligation for they had available funds in their bank
Nonetheless, we recognize that Spouses Yu suffered some form but chose to transfer said funds instead of cover the checks
of pecuniary loss when their properties were wrongfully seized, they issued. Thus, we cannot attribute malice nor bad faith to
although the amount thereof cannot be definitively Te in applying for the attachment writ. We cannot hold her
ascertained. Hence, an award of temperate or moderate liable for moral and exemplary damages.
damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00 is in order.70
As a rule, attorney’s fees cannot be awarded when moral and
As to moral and exemplary damages, to merit an award thereof, exemplary damages are not granted, the exception however is
it must be shown that the wrongful attachment was obtained when a party incurred expenses to lift a wrongfully issued writ
by the attachment plaintiff with malice or bad faith, such as by of attachment.1awphi1.net74 Without a doubt, Spouses Yu
appending a false affidavit to his application.71 waged a protracted legal battle to fight off the illegal
attachment of their properties and pursue their claims for
Spouses Yu argue that malice attended the issuance of the damages. It is only just and equitable that they be awarded
attachment bond as shown by the fact that Te deliberately reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of ₱30,000.00.
appended to her application for preliminary attachment an
Affidavit where Sy perjured himself by stating that they had no In sum, we affirm the dismissal of the counterclaim of
intention to pay their obligations even when he knew this to be petitioners Spouses Yu for actual, moral, and exemplary
untrue given that they had always paid their obligations; and by damages. However, we grant them temperate damages and
accusing them of disposing of their properties to defraud their attorney’s fees.
creditors even when he knew this to be false, considering that
the location of said properties was known to him.72 WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. The March 21,
2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that petitioners’ counterclaim is PARTLY
GRANTED. Gregorio Yu and Josefa Yu are awarded ₱50,000.00 5
Exhibits "A-1," "B-1," and "C-1," envelope of exhibits.
temperate damages and ₱30,000.00 attorney’s fees.
6
Exhibit "H," envelope of exhibits.
No costs.
7
Records, p. 1.
SO ORDERED.
8
Id. at 10.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice 9
Id. at 18.

WE CONCUR: 10
Id. at 19.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO 11
Id. at 48.
Associate Justice
Chairperson 12
Id. at 47.

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO 13

Id. at 20.
Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
14
Id. at 22-23.

15
ATTESTATION Id. at 30.

16
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been Id. at 28.
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. 17
Id. at 69.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO 18
Id. at 88.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division 19
Id. at 94.

CERTIFICATION 20
Id. at 230.

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the 21

Penned by Associate Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes (now
Division Chairperson’s attestation, it is hereby certified that the a retired member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in Justices Vicente V. Mendoza (now a retired member of this
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the Court) and Pacita Canizares-Nye (deceased).
opinion of the Court’s Division.
22
Records, pp. 226-227.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice 23
Id. at 229.

24
Docketed as G.R. No. 114700.

Footnotes 25
Records, p. 340.
1
Rollo, p. 26. 26
Id. at 409-410.
2
Entitled "Ngo Yet Te, doing business under the name and style 27
Id. at 336-337.
ESSENTIAL MANUFACTURING, represented by her attorney-in-fact
Charry N. Sy, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sps. Gregorio and Josefa Yu, 28
Id. at 371.
doing business under the name and style ARCHIE’S STORE,
Defendants-Appellants." 29
Id. at 339.
3
Rollo, p. 45. 30
Id. at 345-346.
4
Exhibit Envelope, Exhibits "A," "B," and "C," envelope of 31
Id. at 404.
exhibits.
32
In the same December 2, 1994 Order, the RTC granted two Rule, shall be claimed, ascertained, and granted under the same
motions filed by Te, a Motion to Correct and to Include Specific procedure as prescribed in Section 20 of Rule 57.
Amount for Interest and a Motion for Execution Pending
Appeal. (Id.) Spouses Yu filed a Notice of Appeal from said 53
143 Phil. 129 (1970).
Order but the same was denied by the RTC in an Order dated
January 5, 1995. (Id. at 411 and 423) Spouses Yu filed with the CA 54
Rollo, pp. 13-16.
a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, docketed as
CA G.R. SP No. 36205, questioning the denial of their Notice of 55
112 Phil. 733 (1961).
Appeal, the modification of the July 20, 1994 Decision and the
issuance of a Writ of Execution. (Id. at 427) The CA granted the 56
Calderon v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74696,
Petition in a Decision dated June 22, 1995. (Id. at 515)
November 11, 1987, 155 SCRA 531, 539.
33
Id. 57
MC Engineering, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 634, 666
34
(2002). See also Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 135830, September
Id. at 353 and 423.
30, 2005, 471 SCRA 266, 296.
35
Id. at 411. 58
Carlos v. Sandoval, supra; MC Engineering, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, supra; Rivera v. Solidbank Corporation, G.R. No. 163269,
36
Id. at 423. April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 512, 546.
37
Id. at 427. 59
Saguid v. Security Finance, Inc., G.R. No. 159467, December 9,
2005, 477 SCRA 256, 275; Villafuerte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
38
Id. at 515. 134239, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 58, 69.

39
CA rollo, p. 43. 60
Public Estates Authority v. Chu, G.R. No. 145291, September 21,
2005, 470 SCRA 495, 503; Villafuerte v. Court of Appeals, supra
40
Id. at 48. note 59.

41 61
Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in Exhibits "11-A" to "11-C," "12-A" to "12-C," "13-A" to "13-C," "14-
by Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now a member A" to "14-C" and "15-A" to "15-C," envelope of exhibits.
of this Court) and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., id. at 120.
62
Rollo, p. 17.
42
Id. at 131.
63
Id. at 18-21; TSN, March 8, 1994, pp. 56-63.
43
Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in
by Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia (now a member of this 64
CA rollo, pp. 129-130.
Court) and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., id. at 162.
65
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. John Bordman Ltd. of
44
Petition, rollo, p. 12. Iloilo, Inc., G.R. No. 159831, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 151, 162.

45
Id. at 111-112. 66
Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagario, G.R. No. 150920,
November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 236, 241-242.
46
See notes 13, 14 and 15.
67
There were 15 ticket stubs presented in evidence. Given that
47
Records, p. 160. Spouses Yu issue three tickets stubs each day of operation, it
follows that the 15 ticket stubs represent sales for five separate
48
Id. at 172. days.

68
49
Id. at 171-b. Saguid v. Security Finance, Inc., supra note 59.

69
50
G.R. No. L-48820, May 25, 1979, 90 SCRA 252. Records, p. 362.

70
51
Id. at 258-259. Emphasis ours. Villafuerte v. Court of Appeals, supra note 59, at 77.

71
52
Rules of Court (1964), Rule 60, Sec. 10, reads: MC Engineering, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 57;
Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation, G.R.
The amount, if any, to be awarded to either party upon any No. 153535, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 409, 429; Philippine
bond filed by the other in accordance with the provisions of this Commercial International Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. 73610, April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 29, 36.
72
Petition, rollo, pp. 13-16.

73
TSN, April 26, 1994, pp. 14-15.

74
Carlos v. Sandoval, supra note 57, at 299-300; MC Engineering,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 57, at 667.