6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v.

Tria-Infante

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 144740. August 31, 2005.]

SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE CORPORATION,

petitioner, vs. THE HON. AMELIA TRIA-INFANTE, In her
official capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 9, Manila; THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by Spouses REYNALDO and ZENAIDA
ANZURES; and REYNALDO R. BUAZON, In his official
capacity as Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9,
Manila, respondents.

Simpliciano Law Office for petitioner.

Delos Santos Sanchez Law Offices for respondents.

SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; SURETYSHIP;
SURETY; DEFINED. — A surety is considered in law as being the same party
as the debtor in relation to whatever is adjudged touching the obligation of the
latter, and their liabilities are interwoven as to be inseparable.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEFINED. — Suretyship is a contractual relation
resulting from an agreement whereby one person, the surety, engages to be
answerable for the debt, default or miscarriage of another, known as the
principal. The surety's obligation is not an original and direct one for the
performance of his own act, but merely accessory or collateral to the
obligation contracted by the principal. Nevertheless, although the contract of a
surety is in essence secondary only to a valid principal obligation, his liability
to the creditor or promise of the principal is said to be direct, primary and
absolute; in other words, he is directly and equally bound with the principal.
The surety therefore becomes liable for the debt or duty of another although
he possesses no direct or personal interest over the obligations nor does he
receive any benefit therefrom.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PROVISIONAL
REMEDIES; PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT; ATTACHMENT, HOW
DISCHARGED. — Under the Rules, there are two (2) ways to secure the
discharge of an attachment. First, the party whose property has been

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 1/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

attached or a person appearing on his behalf may post a security. Second,

said party may show that the order of attachment was improperly or irregularly
issued. The first applies in the instant case.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WRIT OF ATTACHMENT; NOT
AUTOMATICALLY DISCHARGED BY MERE POSTING OF A
COUNTERBOND; CASE AT BAR. — We are not unmindful of our ruling in the
case of Belisle Investment and Finance Co., Inc. v. State Investment House,
Inc., where we held: ". . . [T]he Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the mere
posting of a counterbond does not automatically discharge the writ of
attachment. It is only after hearing and after the judge has ordered the
discharge of the attachment if a cash deposit is made or a counterbond is
executed to the attaching creditor is filed, that the writ of attachment is
properly discharged under Section 12, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court." The
ruling in Belisle, at first glance, would suggest an error in the assailed ruling of
the Court of Appeals because there was no specific resolution discharging the
attachment and approving the counter-bond. As above-explained, however,
consideration of our decision in G.R. No. 106214 in its entirety will readily
show that this Court has virtually discharged the attachment after all the
parties therein have been heard on the matter. On this score, we hew to the
pertinent ratiocination of the Court of Appeals as regards the heretofore cited
provision of Section 12, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, on the
discharge of attachment upon giving counter-bond: ". . . The filing of the
counter-attachment bond by petitioner Villaluz has discharged the attachment
on the properties and made the petitioner corporation liable on the counter-
attachment bond. This can be gleaned from the "DEFENDANT'S BOND FOR
THE DISSOLUTION OF ATTACHMENT," which states that Security Pacific
Assurance Corporation, as surety, in consideration of the dissolution of the
said attachment jointly and severally, binds itself with petitioner Villaluz for any
judgment that may be recovered by private respondent Anzures against
petitioner Villaluz. The contract of surety is only between petitioner Villaluz
and petitioner corporation. The petitioner corporation cannot escape liability
by stating that a court approval is needed before it can be made liable. This
defense can only be availed by petitioner corporation against petitioner
Villaluz but not against third persons who are not parties to the contract of
surety. The petitioners hold themselves out as jointly and severally liable
without any conditions in the counter-attachment bond. The petitioner
corporation cannot impose requisites before it can be made liable when the
law clearly does not require such requisites to be fulfilled."

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J : p

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 2/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Decision 1

and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58147, dated 16
June 2000 and 22 August 2000, respectively. The said Decision and
Resolution declared that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
respondent Judge in issuing the assailed order dated 31 March 2000, which
was the subject in CA-G.R. SP No. 58147.
THE FACTS
The factual milieu of the instant case can be traced from this Court's
decision in G.R. No. 106214 promulgated on 05 September 1997.
On 26 August 1988, Reynaldo Anzures instituted a complaint against
Teresita Villaluz (Villaluz) for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The
criminal information was brought before the Regional Trial Court, City of
Manila, and raffled off to Branch 9, then presided over by Judge Edilberto G.
Sandoval, docketed as Criminal Case No. 89-69257.
An Ex-Parte Motion for Preliminary Attachment 3 dated 06 March 1989
was filed by Reynaldo Anzures praying that pending the hearing on the merits
of the case, a Writ of Preliminary Attachment be issued ordering the sheriff to
attach the properties of Villaluz in accordance with the Rules.
On 03 July 1989, the trial court issued an Order 4 for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment "upon complainant's posting of a bond which is
hereby fixed at P2,123,400.00 and the Court's approval of the same under the
condition prescribed by Sec. 4 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. . . ."
An attachment bond 5 was thereafter posted by Reynaldo Anzures and
approved by the court. Thereafter, the sheriff attached certain properties of
Villaluz, which were duly annotated on the corresponding certificates of title.
On 25 May 1990, the trial court rendered a Decision 6 on the case
acquitting Villaluz of the crime charged, but held her civilly liable. The
dispositive portion of the said decision is reproduced hereunder:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ACQUITTING the accused TERESITA E. VILLALUZ with
cost de oficio. As to the civil aspect of the case however, accused is
ordered to pay complainant Reynaldo Anzures the sum of TWO
MILLION ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED (P2,123,400.00) PESOS with legal rate of interest from
December 18, 1987 until fully paid, the sum of P50,000.00 as
attorney's fees and the cost of suit. 7

Villaluz interposed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, and on 30 April

1992, the latter rendered its Decision, 8 the dispositive portion of which partly
reads:

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 3/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

WHEREFORE, in CA-G.R. CV No. 28780, the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, dated May 25, 1990, as to
the civil aspect of Criminal Case No. 89-69257, is hereby
AFFIRMED, in all respects. . . .
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 106214), and
during its pendency, Villaluz posted a counter-bond in the amount of
P2,500,000.00 issued by petitioner Security Pacific Assurance Corporation. 9
Villaluz, on the same date 10 of the counter-bond, filed an Urgent Motion to
Discharge Attachment. 11
On 05 September 1997, we promulgated our decision in G.R. No.
106214, affirming in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In view of the finality of this Court's decision in G.R. No. 106214, the
private complainant moved for execution of judgment before the trial court. 12
On 07 May 1999, the trial court, now presided over by respondent
Judge, issued a Writ of Execution. 13
Sheriff Reynaldo R. Buazon tried to serve the writ of execution upon
Villaluz, but the latter no longer resided in her given address. This being the
case, the sheriff sent a Notice of Garnishment upon petitioner at its office in
Makati City, by virtue of the counter-bond posted by Villaluz with said
insurance corporation in the amount of P2,500,000.00. As reported by the
sheriff, petitioner refused to assume its obligation on the counter-bond it
posted for the discharge of the attachment made by Villaluz. 14
Reynaldo Anzures, through the private prosecutor, filed a Motion to
Proceed with Garnishment, 15 which was opposed by petitioner 16 contending
that it should not be held liable on the counter-attachment bond.
The trial court, in its Order dated 31 March 2000, 17 granted the Motion
to Proceed with Garnishment. The sheriff issued a Follow-Up of Garnishment
18 addressed to the President/General Manager of petitioner dated 03 April

2000. SAHEIc

On 07 April 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with

Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order 19 with the Court of
Appeals, seeking the nullification of the trial court's order dated 31 March
2000 granting the motion to proceed with garnishment. Villaluz was also
named as petitioner. The petitioners contended that the respondent Judge, in
issuing the order dated 31 March 2000, and the sheriff committed grave
abuse of discretion and grave errors of law in proceeding against the
petitioner corporation on its counter-attachment bond, despite the fact that
said bond was not approved by the Supreme Court, and that the condition by
which said bond was issued did not happen. 20

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 4/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

On 16 June 2000, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision, 21 the

dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge in issuing the
assailed order. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

A Motion for Reconsideration 22 was filed by petitioner, but was denied

for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution 23 dated 22 August
2000.
Undeterred, petitioner filed the instant petition under Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, with Urgent Application for a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. 24
On 13 December 2000, this Court issued a Resolution 25 requiring the
private respondents to file their Comment to the Petition, which they did.
Petitioner was required to file its Reply 26 thereafter.
Meanwhile, on 17 January 2001, petitioner and the spouses Reynaldo
and Zenaida Anzures executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 27
In it, it was stipulated that as of said date, the total amount garnished from
petitioner had amounted to P1,541,063.85, and so the remaining amount still
sought to be executed was P958,936.15. 28 Petitioner tendered and paid the
amount of P300,000.00 upon signing of the MOU, and the balance of
P658,936.15 was to be paid in installment at P100,000.00 at the end of each
month from February 2001 up to July 2001. At the end of August 2001, the
amount of P58,936.00 would have to be paid. This would make the aggregate
amount paid to the private respondents P2,500,000.00. 29 There was,
however, a proviso in the MOU which states that "this contract shall not be
construed as a waiver or abandonment of the appellate review pending before
the Supreme Court and that it will be subject to all such interim orders and
final outcome of said case."
On 13 August 2001, the instant petition was given due course, and the
parties were obliged to submit their respective Memoranda. 30
ISSUES
The petitioner raises the following issues for the resolution of this Court:
Main Issue — WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE
31 MARCH 2000 ORDER OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE
WHICH ALLOWED EXECUTION ON THE COUNTER-BOND
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
Corollary Issues — (1) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT
OF APPEALS CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE ATTACHMENT ON
THE PROPERTY OF VILLALUZ WAS DISCHARGED WITHOUT
NEED OF COURT APPROVAL OF THE COUNTER-BOND
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 5/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

POSTED; and (2) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS

CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE ATTACHMENT ON THE
PROPERTY OF VILLALUZ WAS DISCHARGED BY THE MERE
ACT OF POSTING THE COUNTER-BOND.
THE COURT'S RULING
Petitioner seeks to escape liability by contending, in the main, that the
writ of attachment which was earlier issued against the real properties of
Villaluz was not discharged. Since the writ was not discharged, then its liability
did not accrue. The alleged failure of this Court in G.R. No. 106214 to approve
the counter-bond and to cause the discharge of the attachment against
Villaluz prevented the happening of a condition upon which the counter-bond's
issuance was premised, such that petitioner should not be held liable thereon.
31

Petitioner further asserts that the agreement between it and Villaluz is

not a suretyship agreement in the sense that petitioner has become an
additional debtor in relation to private respondents. It is merely waiving its
right of excussion 32 that would ordinarily apply to counter-bond guarantors as
originally contemplated in Section 12, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules.
In their Comment, 33 the private respondents assert that the filing of the
counter-bond by Villaluz had already ipso facto discharged the attachment on
the properties and made the petitioner liable on the bond. Upon acceptance of
the premium, there was already an express contract for surety between
Villaluz and petitioner in the amount of P2,500,000.00 to answer for any
adverse judgment/decision against Villaluz.
Petitioner filed a Reply 34 dated 09 May 2001 to private respondents'
Comment, admitting the binding effect of the bond as between the parties
thereto. What it did not subscribe to was the theory that the attachment was
ipso facto or automatically discharged by the mere filing of the bond in court.
Such theory, according to petitioner, has no foundation. Without an order of
discharge of attachment and approval of the bond, petitioner submits that its
stipulated liability on said bond, premised on their occurrence, could not
possibly arise, for to hold otherwise would be to trample upon the statutorily
guaranteed right of the parties to contractual autonomy. HIEAcC

Based on the circumstances present in this case, we find no compelling

reason to reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
Over the years, in a number of cases, we have made certain
pronouncements about counter-bonds.
In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 35 as reiterated in Vanguard Assurance Corp.
v. Court of Appeals, 36 we held:

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 6/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

. . . [A]fter the judgment for the plaintiff has become executory

and the execution is 'returned unsatisfied,' as in this case, the liability
of the bond automatically attaches and, in failure of the surety to
satisfy the judgment against the defendant despite demand therefore,
writ of execution may issue against the surety to enforce the
obligation of the bond.

In Luzon Steel Corporation v. Sia, et al.: 37

. . . [C]ounterbonds posted to obtain the lifting of a writ of
attachment is due to these bonds being security for the payment of
any judgment that the attaching party may obtain; they are thus mere
replacements of the property formerly attached, and just as the latter
may be levied upon after final judgment in the case in order to realize
the amount adjudged, so is the liability of the countersureties
ascertainable after the judgment has become final. . . .

In Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. De Los Angeles, 38 we ruled:

. . . Section 17, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court cannot be
construed that an "execution against the debtor be first returned
unsatisfied even if the bond were a solidary one, for a procedural
may not amend the substantive law expressed in the Civil Code, and
further would nullify the express stipulation of the parties that the
surety's obligation should be solidary with that of the defendant.
In Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
39we further held that "the counterbond is intended to secure the payment of
'any judgment' that the attaching creditor may recover in the action."
Petitioner does not deny that the contract between it and Villaluz is one
of surety. However, it points out that the kind of surety agreement between
them is one that merely waives its right of excussion. This cannot be so. The
counter-bond itself states that the parties jointly and severally bind themselves
to secure the payment of any judgment that the plaintiff may recover against
the defendant in the action. A surety is considered in law as being the same
party as the debtor in relation to whatever is adjudged touching the obligation
of the latter, and their liabilities are interwoven as to be inseparable. 40
Suretyship is a contractual relation resulting from an agreement
whereby one person, the surety, engages to be answerable for the debt,
default or miscarriage of another, known as the principal. The surety's
obligation is not an original and direct one for the performance of his own act,
but merely accessory or collateral to the obligation contracted by the principal.
Nevertheless, although the contract of a surety is in essence secondary only
to a valid principal obligation, his liability to the creditor or promise of the
principal is said to be direct, primary and absolute; in other words, he is
directly and equally bound with the principal. The surety therefore becomes

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 7/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

liable for the debt or duty of another although he possesses no direct or

personal interest over the obligations nor does he receive any benefit
therefrom. 41
In view of the nature and purpose of a surety agreement, petitioner,
thus, is barred from disclaiming liability.
Petitioner's argument that the mere filing of a counter-bond in this case
cannot automatically discharge the attachment without first an order of
discharge and approval of the bond, is lame.
Under the Rules, there are two (2) ways to secure the discharge of an
attachment. First, the party whose property has been attached or a person
appearing on his behalf may post a security. Second, said party may show
that the order of attachment was improperly or irregularly issued. 42 The first
applies in the instant case. Section 12, Rule 57, 43 provides:
SEC. 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving counter-
bond. — After a writ of attachment has been enforced, the party
whose property has been attached, or the person appearing on his
behalf, may move for the discharge of the attachment wholly or in
part on the security given. The court shall, after due notice and
hearing, order the discharge of the attachment if the movant makes a
cash deposit, or files a counter-bond executed to the attaching party
with the clerk of the court where the application is made, in an
amount equal to that fixed by the court in the order of attachment,
exclusive of costs. But if the attachment is sought to be discharged
with respect to a particular property, the counter-bond shall be equal
to the value of that property as determined by the court. In either
case, the cash deposit or the counter-bond shall secure the payment
of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the action. A
notice of the deposit shall forthwith be served on the attaching party.
Upon the discharge of an attachment in accordance with the
provisions of this section, the property attached, or the proceeds of
any sale thereof, shall be delivered to the party making the deposit or
giving the counter-bond, or to the person appearing on his behalf, the
deposit or counter-bond aforesaid standing in place of the property
so released. Should such counter-bond for any reason be found to be
or become insufficient, and the party furnishing the same fail to file an
additional counter-bond, the attaching party may apply for a new
order of attachment.
It should be noted that in G.R. No. 106214, per our Resolution dated 15
January 1997, 44 we permitted Villaluz to file a counter-attachment bond. On
17 February 1997, 45 we required the private respondents to comment on the
sufficiency of the counter-bond posted by Villaluz.
It is quite palpable that the necessary steps in the discharge of an
attachment upon giving counter-bond have been taken. To require a specific
order for the discharge of the attachment when this Court, in our decision in
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 8/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

G.R. No. 106214, had already declared that the petitioner is solidarily bound
with Villaluz would be mere surplusage. Thus:
During the pendency of this petition, a counter-attachment
bond was filed by petitioner Villaluz before this Court to discharge the
attachment earlier issued by the trial court. Said bond amounting to
P2.5 million was furnished by Security Pacific Assurance, Corp.
which agreed to bind itself "jointly and severally" with petitioner for
"any judgment" that may be recovered by private respondent against
the former. 46
We are not unmindful of our ruling in the case of Belisle Investment and
Finance Co., Inc. v. State Investment House, Inc., 47 where we held:
. . . [T]he Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the mere
posting of a counterbond does not automatically discharge the writ of
attachment. It is only after hearing and after the judge has ordered
the discharge of the attachment if a cash deposit is made or a
counterbond is executed to the attaching creditor is filed, that the writ
of attachment is properly discharged under Section 12, Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court.
The ruling in Belisle, at first glance, would suggest an error in the
assailed ruling of the Court of Appeals because there was no specific
resolution discharging the attachment and approving the counter-bond. As
above-explained, however, consideration of our decision in G.R. No. 106214
in its entirety will readily show that this Court has virtually discharged the
attachment after all the parties therein have been heard on the matter. aCcEHS

On this score, we hew to the pertinent ratiocination of the Court of

Appeals as regards the heretofore cited provision of Section 12, Rule 57 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, on the discharge of attachment upon giving
counter-bond:
. . . The filing of the counter-attachment bond by petitioner
Villaluz has discharged the attachment on the properties and made
the petitioner corporation liable on the counter-attachment bond. This
can be gleaned from the "DEFENDANT'S BOND FOR THE
DISSOLUTION OF ATTACHMENT", which states that Security
Pacific Assurance Corporation, as surety, in consideration of the
dissolution of the said attachment jointly and severally, binds itself
with petitioner Villaluz for any judgment that may be recovered by
private respondent Anzures against petitioner Villaluz.
The contract of surety is only between petitioner Villaluz and
petitioner corporation. The petitioner corporation cannot escape
liability by stating that a court approval is needed before it can be
made liable. This defense can only be availed by petitioner
corporation against petitioner Villaluz but not against third persons
who are not parties to the contract of surety. The petitioners hold
themselves out as jointly and severally liable without any conditions
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 9/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

in the counter-attachment bond. The petitioner corporation cannot

impose requisites before it can be made liable when the law
clearly does not require such requisites to be fulfilled. 48
(Emphases supplied.)
Verily, a judgment must be read in its entirety, and it must be construed
as a whole so as to bring all of its parts into harmony as far as this can be
done by fair and reasonable interpretation and so as to give effect to every
word and part, if possible, and to effectuate the intention and purpose of the
Court, consistent with the provisions of the organic law. 49
Insurance companies are prone to invent excuses to avoid their just
obligation. 50 It seems that this statement very well fits the instant case.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision and Resolution
of the Court of Appeals dated 16 June 2000 and 22 August 2000, respectively,
are both AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Penned by then Associate now Presiding Justice Romeo A. Brawner
with Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. and Andres B. Reyes,
Jr. concurring; Rollo, pp. 12-16.
2. Rollo, pp. 17-18.
3. Records, pp. 26-30.
4. Records, pp. 137-138.
5. Records, pp. 139-140.
6. Records, pp. 331-340.
7. Records, p. 341; Rollo, p. 106.
8. Records, pp. 373-392; Rollo, p. 126.
9. Rollo, p. 132.
10. 07 February 1997.
11. Rollo, pp. 131 and 133.
12. Records, pp. 403-404.
13. Records, pp. 419-420.
14. Records, p. 463.
15. Records, pp. 424-426.
16. Records, pp. 437-438.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 10/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

17. Records, p. 467.

18. CA Rollo, p. 19.
19. CA Rollo, pp. 1-17.
20. CA Rollo, p. 10.
21. CA Rollo, pp. 52-56; Rollo, pp. 12-16.
22. CA Rollo, pp. 57-61.
23. CA Rollo, pp. 72-73.
24. Rollo, pp. 40-79; dated 21 October 2000.
25. Rollo, p. 177.
26. Rollo, pp. 203-211.
27. Rollo, pp. 228-231.
28. The counter-bond was in the amount of P2,500,000.00.
29. There is no exact manifestation if all the installments were actually
paid.
30. Rollo, p. 213.
31. Rollo, p. 70.
32 Art. 2058 of the New Civil Code provides:
ART. 2058. — The guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless
the latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor, and has resorted to
all the legal remedies against the debtor.
33. Rollo, pp. 187-191.
34. Rollo, pp. 203-209.
35. G.R. No. L-21450, 15 April 1968, 23 SCRA 29, 39.
36. G.R. No. L-25921, 27 May 1975, 64 SCRA 148.
37. G.R. No. L-26449, 15 May 1969, 28 SCRA 58, 62, citing Cajefe v.
Judge Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. L-15709, 19 October 1960, 109 Phil. 743.
38. G.R. No. L-28030, 18 January 1982, 111 SCRA 24, 33.
39. G.R. No. L-72005, 29 May 1987, 150 SCRA 520.
40. Philippine National Bank v. Pineda, G.R. No. 46658, 13 May 1991, 197
SCRA 1, citing Government of the Philippines v. Tizon, G.R. No. L-22108,
30 August 1987, 20 SCRA 1182.
41. Garcia, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80201, 20 November 1990,
191 SCRA 493, citing Sykes v. Everett, 167 NC 600 and Miner's Merchants
Bank v. Gidley, 150 WVa229, 144 SE 2d 711.
42. Rule 57, Sections 12 and 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 11/12
6/30/2019 G.R. No. 144740 | Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tria-Infante

43. Ibid.
44. Rollo, p. 128.
45. Rollo, p. 134.
46. Rollo, p. 140.
47. G.R. No. L-71917, 30 June 1987, 151 SCRA 630.
48 Rollo, p. 16.
49. 49 C.J.S., pp. 863-864; as cited in Republic v. De Los Angeles, G.R.
No. L-26112, 04 October 1971.
50. Cathay Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85624, 05
June 1989, 174 SCRA 11.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/359/print 12/12