Philippine British Assurance Co. Inc. vs. IAC [G.R. No. L-72005. May 29, 1987]

15 Aug

Ponente: GANCAYCO, J.


[P]rivate 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. During the pendency of the suit, private respondent succeeded in attaching some of the properties of Varian Industrial Corporation upon the posting of a supersedeas bond. The latter in turn posted a counterbond in the sum of P1,400,000.00 thru petitioner Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc., so the attached properties were released. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Sycwin. Varian Industrial Corporation appealed the decision to the respondent Court. Sycwin then filed a petition for execution pending appeal against the properties of Varian in respondent Court. The respondent Court granted the petition of Sycwin. Varian, thru its insurer and petitioner herein, raised the issue to the Supreme Court. A temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents from enforcing the order complaint of was issued.


Whether or not an order of execution pending appeal of any judgment maybe enforced on the counterbond of the petitioner.


YES. Petition was dismissed for lack of merit and the restraining order dissolved with costs against petitioner.


It is well recognized rule that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemusThe 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. 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. 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.

The rule therefore, is that the counterbond 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.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 15, 2012 in Case Digests, Statutory Construction


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: