Hence plaintiffs made the necessary demand upon the surety for satisfaction of

Hence plaintiffs made the necessary demand upon the

This preview shows page 49 - 51 out of 80 pages.

Hence, plaintiffs made the necessary demand upon the surety for satisfaction of the judgment, and upon the latter's failure to pay the amount due, plaintiffs again filed a motion dated October 31, 1957, for issuance of writ of execution against the surety, with notice of hearing on November 2, 1957. On October 31, 1957, the surety received copy of said motion and notice of hearing. It appears that when the motion was called on November 2, 1957, the surety's counsel asked that he be given time within which to answer the motion, and so an order was issued in open court, as follows: 1äwphï1.ñët As prayed for , Atty. Jose P. Soberano, Jr., counsel for the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., Cebu Branch, is given until Wednesday, November 6, 1957, to file his answer to the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution dated October 30, 1957 of the plaintiffs, after which this incident shall be deemed submitted for resolution . SO ORDERED. Given in open court, this 2nd day of November, 1957, at Cebu City, Philippines.
Image of page 49
(Sgd.) JOSE M. MENDOZA Judge (Record on Appeal, pp. 64-65, emphasis ours) Since the surety's counsel failed to file any answer or objection within the period given him, the court, on December 7, 1957, issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for execution against the surety; and on December 12, 1957, the corresponding writ of execution was issued. On December 24, 1957, the surety filed a motion to quash the writ of execution on the ground that the same was "issued without the requirements of Section 17, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court having been complied with," more specifically, that the same was issued without the required "summary hearing". This motion was denied by order of February 10, 1958. On February 25, 1958, the surety filed a motion for reconsideration of the above- stated order of denial; which motion was likewise denied by order of March 26, 1958. From the above-stated orders of February 10, 1958 and March 26, 1958 — denying the surety's motion to quash the writ of execution and motion for reconsideration, respectively — the surety has interposed the appeal on hand. The surety insists that the lower court should have granted its motion to quash the writ of execution because the same was issued without the summary hearing required by Section 17 of Rule 59, which reads; "Sec. 17. When execution returned unsatisfied, recovery had upon bond . — If the execution be returned unsatisfied in whole or in part, the surety or sureties on any bond given pursuant to the provisions of this role to secure the payment of the judgment shall become finally charged on such bond, and bound to pay to the plaintiff 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 same action ." (Emphasis ours) Summary hearing is "not intended to be carried on in the formal manner in which ordinary actions are prosecuted" (83 C.J.S. 792). It is, rather, a procedure by which a question is resolved "with dispatch, with the least possible delay, and in preference to ordinary legal and regular judicial proceedings" ( Ibid , p. 790). What
Image of page 50
Image of page 51

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture