Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 311 views

    Towers Assurance vs. Ororama Supermart

    Uploaded by

    Mitchi Jerez
    Ororama Supermart sued the Ong spouses for unpaid debts and was granted a writ of preliminary attachment on their properties. To lift the attachment, the Ong spouses posted a counterbond with Towers Assurance Corporation as surety. The Ong spouses later failed to appear and a default judgment was issued against both the spouses and Towers Assurance Corporation. Towers Assurance Corporation challenged the writ of execution issued against it, arguing it was not given an opportunity to be heard on its liability. The court agreed and set aside the writ, directing the lower court to hold a summary hearing to determine Towers Assurance Corporation's liability under the counterbond as the surety is entitled to be heard before

    Copyright:

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

    Towers Assurance vs. Ororama Supermart

    Uploaded by

    Mitchi Jerez
    311 views1 page
    Ororama Supermart sued the Ong spouses for unpaid debts and was granted a writ of preliminary attachment on their properties. To lift the attachment, the Ong spouses posted a counterbond with Towers Assurance Corporation as surety. The Ong spouses later failed to appear and a default judgment was issued against both the spouses and Towers Assurance Corporation. Towers Assurance Corporation challenged the writ of execution issued against it, arguing it was not given an opportunity to be heard on its liability. The court agreed and set aside the writ, directing the lower court to hold a summary hearing to determine Towers Assurance Corporation's liability under the counterbond as the surety is entitled to be heard before

    Original Description:

    credit transaction

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ororama Supermart sued the Ong spouses for unpaid debts and was granted a writ of preliminary attachment on their properties. To lift the attachment, the Ong spouses posted a counterbond with Towers Assurance Corporation as surety. The Ong spouses later failed to appear and a default judgment was issued against both the spouses and Towers Assurance Corporation. Towers Assurance Corporation challenged the writ of execution issued against it, arguing it was not given an opportunity to be heard on its liability. The court agreed and set aside the writ, directing the lower court to hold a summary hearing to determine Towers Assurance Corporation's liability under the counterbond as the surety is entitled to be heard before

    Copyright:

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

    Towers Assurance vs. Ororama Supermart

    Uploaded by

    Mitchi Jerez
    Ororama Supermart sued the Ong spouses for unpaid debts and was granted a writ of preliminary attachment on their properties. To lift the attachment, the Ong spouses posted a counterbond with Towers Assurance Corporation as surety. The Ong spouses later failed to appear and a default judgment was issued against both the spouses and Towers Assurance Corporation. Towers Assurance Corporation challenged the writ of execution issued against it, arguing it was not given an opportunity to be heard on its liability. The court agreed and set aside the writ, directing the lower court to hold a summary hearing to determine Towers Assurance Corporation's liability under the counterbond as the surety is entitled to be heard before

    Copyright:

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

    TOWERS ASSURANCE CORPORATION vs.

    ORORAMA SUPERMART
    Case: liability of a surety in a counterbond for the lifting of a writ
    of preliminary attachment

    FACTS: See Hong, the proprietor of Ororama Supermart in Cagayan de Oro


    City, sued the spouses Ernesto Ong and Conching Ong in the Court of First
    Instance of Misamis Oriental for the collection of the sum of P58,400 plus
    litigation expenses and attorney's fees (Civil Case No. 4930).
    He asked for a writ of preliminary attachment and the lower court issued
    an order of attachment. The deputy sheriff attached the properties of the
    Ong spouses in Valencia, Bukidnon and in Cagayan de Oro City.
    To lift the attachment, the Ong spouses filed a counterbond in the amount
    of P58,400 with Towers Assurance Corporation as surety. In that
    undertaking, the Ong spouses and Towers Assurance Corporation bound
    themselves to pay solidarily to See Hong the sum of P58,400.
    Ong Spouses failed to appearduring pre-trial, they were declared in default.
    The lower court ordered the spouse and the surety to pay solidarily See
    Hong the sum of P58,400 plus P10,000 as litigation expenses and
    attorney's fees.
    Ernesto Ong manifested that he did not want to appeal.
    Ororama Supermart filed a motion for execution. It was granted by the
    lower court. The writ of execution was issued against the judgment debtors
    and their surety. The, Towers Assurance Corporation filed the instant
    petition for certiorari where it assails the decision and writ of execution.
    ISSUE: WON surety is liable absence of showing that it was given
    opportunity to be heard.
    HELD:

    Lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of


    execution against the surety without first giving it an opportunity to be
    heard as required in Rule 57 of the Rules of Court which provides:
    "SEC. 17. When execution returned unsatisfied, recovers
    had upon bond. If the execution be returned
    unsatisfied in whole or in part, the surety or sureties on
    any counterbond given pursuant to the provisions of this
    rule to secure the payment of the judgment shall become
    charged on such counterbond, and bound to pay to the
    judgment creditor upon demand, the amount due under
    the judgment, which amount may be recovered from
    such surety or sureties after notice and summary hearing
    in the action."
    Under section 17, in order that the judgment creditor might recover
    from the surety on the counterbond, it is necessary (1) that
    execution be first issued against the principal debtor and that such
    execution was returned unsatisfied in whole or in part; (2) that the creditor
    made a demand upon the surety for the satisfaction of the judgment, and
    (3) that the surety be given notice and a summary hearing in the same
    action as to his liability for the judgment under his counterbond.
    The first requisite mentioned above is not applicable to this case
    because Towers Assurance Corporation assumed a solidary liability for the
    satisfaction of the judgment. A surety is not entitled to the
    exhaustion of the properties of the principal debtor (Art. 2959) But
    certainly, the surety is entitled to be, heard before an execution can
    be issued against him since he is not a party in the case involving
    his principal. The writ of is set aside. The lower court is directed to
    conduct a summary hearing on the surety's liability on its counterbond. No
    costs.

    You might also like