100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 6 - 7 out of 9 pages.
Paramount Insurance Corporation (Paramount). Accordingly, a writ of preliminaryinjunction was issued and DECORP was ordered to continue the supply of electricpower.The RTC rendered judgment in favor of DECORP and likewise adjudgedParamount to pay.On appeal by Paramount, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Before thisCourt, Paramount contends that the injunction bond was issued to guarantee “actualand material damages as may be sustained and duly proved by DECORP,” to theeffect that it is liable to pay such actualand material damages only and no other damages.ISSUE:WON surety is released from liability where there was nohearing held to establish it’s liability on the injunction bond.Ruling:It is neither mandatory nor fatal that there should bea separatehearing in order that damages upon the bond can beclaimed, ascertained and awarded. Rule 57, Section 20.Jurisprudential findings laid down the doctrine that a finaladjudication that the applicant is not entitled to the injunctiondoes not suffice to make the surety liable. It is necessary, inaddition, that the surety be accorded due process, that is, that itbe given an opportunity to be heard on the question of itssolidary liability for damages arising from a wrongful injunctionorder. Withal, the fact that the matter of damages was amongthe issues tried during the hearings on the merits will not renderunnecessary or superfluous a summary hearing to determinethe extent of a suretys liability unless of course, the surety hadbeen impleaded as a party, or otherwise earlier notified andgiven opportunity to be present and ventilate its side on thematter during the trial.The exception under the doctrinal ruling abovenoted is extantin the case at bar.What is necessary only is for the attaching party and his suretyor sureties to be duly notified and given the opportunity to beheard. PARAMOUNT was present and represented by its counselAtty. Nonito Q. Cordero as shown in the trial courts order. Whatthe law abhors is not the absence of previous notice but rather theabsolute lack of opportunity to ventilate a partys side. In otherwords, petitioner cannot successfully invoke denial of dueprocess where it was given the chance to be heard. It may not be amiss to point out that by the contract ofsuretyship, it is not for the obligee to see to it that the principalpays the debt or fulfills the contract, but for the surety to see to itthat the principal pay or perform. The purpose of the injunctionbond is to protect the defendant against loss or damage by reasonof the injunction in case the court finally decides that the plaintiffwas not entitled to it, and the bond is usually conditionedaccordingly. Thus, the bondsmen are obligated toaccount to the defendant in the injunction suit for all damages, orcosts and reasonable counsel’s fees, incurred or sustained by thelatter in case it is determined that the injunction was wrongfullyissued. The posting of a bond in connection with a preliminary
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 9 pages?
Guaranty And Surety Digest, Credit Case Digest, Aval, Surety, Sureties, Surety bond