Philippine British

Assurance Co., Inc

vs.
Honorable Intermediate
Appellate Court

No. L-72005, May 29, 1987

 Plaintiff – Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc.

 Filed
Fileda acomplaint forexecution
petition for collection pending
of a sumappeal
against the defendant.
against the
properties of defendant.
RTC Ruling:
RTC Ruling:for Summary Judgment was GRANTED.
 Motion
 Ordered
Defendant thewas
writorder
of execution.
to pay the ff.
• Principal obligation with 12% interest per annum
from date of default until fully paid.
• liquidated damages
Posting of a supersedeas bond- attaching some of the
• Exemplary damages
properties of defendant.
• Attorney’s fee
• Cost of suit
Defendant – Varian Industrial Corporation
Appealed
Posted athe
counterbond
decision to the
in the
respondent
sum of Php.
Court
1,- 400,000.00
DENIED
thru Philippine British Assurance (petitioner)
Respondent – Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc.

 Filed with respondent Court prayed that the surety be

ordered to pay the value of its bond.

RTC Ruling:
 GRANTED

Petitioner – Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc.

Filed its Comment.
HENCE this action.

Petition for Review on Centoriari of the Resolution of

Intermediate Appellate Court;

1. Granting private respondent’s motion for execution

pending appeal.

2. Ordering the issuance of the corresponding writ of

execution on the counterbond to lift attachment filed
by petitioner.

ISSUE
:
“Whether an order of execution pending appeal of a
judgment maybe enforced on the said bond.”
Supreme Court ruling:

YES, because;

 Under Section 5 and 12, Rule 57, it is provided that the

counterbond is intended to secure the payment of “any
judgment” that the attaching creditor may recover in the
action.

 Under Section 17 of the same rule, it provides that when

“the execution be returned unsatisfied in whole or in
part,” it is only then that “payment of the judgment
shall become charged on such counterbond.”
Statutory Construction Application

“Where the law does not distinguish, courts

should not distinguish.”

-Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos

The law in this case does not make any distinction nor
intended to make any exception, when it speaks of “any
judgment” which maybe charged against the counterbond,
it should be interpreted to refer not only to a final and
executory judgment in the case but also a judgment
pending appeal.