SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE v.

TRIA-INFANTE (2005)
Facts
• Reynaldo Anzures filed a complaint in RTC against Teresita Villaluz for
violation BP 22.

• Anzures filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Preliminary Attachment, praying that

pending the hearing on the merits of the case, a WPA is to be issued
ordering the sheriff to attach the properties of Villaluz in accordance with
the Rules.

• RTC issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment upon complainant’s

(Anzures) posting of a bond (P2.1M). Sheriff attached certain properties
of Villaluz and were duly annotated on the corresponding certificates of
title.

• RTC acquitted Villaluz of the crime charged (BP22) but held her civilly
liable. Villaluz appealed but decision was affirmed.

• The case was elevated to the SC and during it’s pendency, Villaluz posted a
counter-bond of P2.5M issued by Security Pacific Assurance
Corporation, as well as filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment.
• SC affirmed CA; Anzures moved for execution of judgment.

• Pursuant to a writ of execution issued, Sheriff Reynaldo R. Buazon

tried to serve the writ of execution upon Villaluz, but the latter no
longer resided in her given address.

• Sheriff sent a Notice of Garnishment to Security Pacific

Assurance Corporation’s office in Makati City, by virtue of the
counter-bond posted by Villaluz with said insurance corporation in
the amount of P2.5M but refused to assume it’s obligation on the
counter-bond it posted for the discharge of the attachment made by
Villaluz on the ground that the bond was not approved by SC and
that the condition by which the bond was issued, did not happen. –
court denied.

• Anzures, through the private prosecutor, filed a Motion to Proceed

with Garnishment, which was opposed by petitioner contending that
it should not be held liable on the counter-attachment bond.

• CA – affirmed RTC= Security Pacific liable

Issues
• 1. WON CA committed an error in affirming the
decision of RTC to allow execution on the
counter-bond issued by Security Pacific

• 2. WON CA correct in ruling that the that the

mere act of posting the counter-bond was
sufficient to discharge the attachment on the
property (attachment on the property of Villaliz
was discharged without need of court approval
of the counter-bond)
Held
• 1. No. When a judgment which has become executory, is returned
unsatisfied, liability of the bond automatically attaches 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. - Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. “

• Security Pacific was saying that although, it has a surety agreement with
Villaluz, it is one which merely waives its right of excussion. This is wrong
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.

• In a contract of suretyship, surety agrees to be answerable directly,

primarily and absolutely to the principal’s debt, default or miscarriage of
another. This means that the surety is equally bound with the principal
regardless of his interest in the obligation or receipt of benefits. Security
Pacific therefore cannot deny liability as a surety.
• 2. YES, CA correct in ruling that attachment discharged without
need of court approval

• There are two (2) ways to secure the discharge of an attachment. 1. -

the party whose property has been attached or a person appearing
on his behalf may post a security (Sec 12 Rule 57). 2.- party whose
property is attached may show that the order of attachment was
improperly or irregularly issued.

• The mere filing of the counter-attachment bond by 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.
Disposition:
• 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.