Republ

i
coft
hePhi
l
ippi
nes

SUPREMECOURT

Mani
l
a

ENBANC

G.
R.No.L-
21450      Apr
il15,
1968

SERAFI
NTI
JAM,
ETAL.
,
 pl
aint
if
fs-
appel
l
ees,

v
s.

MAGDALENOSI
BONGHANOYal
i
asGAVI
NOSI
BONGHANOYandLUCI
ABAGUI
O, 
def
endant
s,

MANILASURETYANDFI
DELI
TYCO.
,I
NC.(
CEBUBRANCH)
 bondi
ngcompanyanddef
endant
-
appel
l
ant
.

F.S.Ur
otandG.A.Ur
iat
eforpl
aint
if
fs-
appel
l
ees.

Car
losJ.Cui
zonf
ordef
endant
sGav
inoSi
bonghanoyandLuci
aBagui
o.

Vil
l
aluzLawOff
ice,
VelascoLawOf f
ice,
PagesandSober
anof
ordef
endant
-appel
l
antMani
l
a
Suret
yandFi
deli
tyCompany,Inc.

DI
ZON,
 
J.:

OnJul y19,1948—bar el
yonemont haft
ertheef fecti
vi
tyofRepubl icActNo.296knownast he
Judici
aryActof1948—t hespousesSer afinTi j
am andFelicit
asTagal ogcommencedCi vi
lCase
No.R-660int heCourtofFi rstInstanceofCebuagai nstthespousesMagdal enoSibonghanoy
andLuciaBagui otorecov erf r
om them thesum ofP1, 908.00,withlegalinterestthereonfrom
thedateofthef i
li
ngoft hecompl aintuntil
thewhol eobligati
oni spaid,pluscost s.Aspr ay
edf or
i
nt hecompl ai
nt,awritofat tachmentwasi ssuedbyt hecour tagainstdef endants'propert
ies,
butthesamewassoondi ssolvedupont hefil
ingofacount er-bondbydef endantsandt he
Mani l
aSuretyandFidelit
yCo. ,I
nc.hereinafterrefer
redtoast heSur ety,
ont he31stoft hesame
mont
h.

Aft
erbeingdul
yservedwit
hsummonst hedefendantsfi
l
edtheiranswerinwhich,
aftermaki
ng
someadmi ssi
onsanddenial
softhemater
ialaver
mentsofthecompl ai
nt,t
heyint
erposeda
count
erclai
m.Thi
scounter
clai
m wasansweredbyt hepl
aint
if
fs.

Aftertrialupont hei ssuest husjoined, theCour trenderedj udgmenti nf avorofthepl aintiff

sand,
afterthesamehadbecomef i
nalandexecut ory,uponmot i
onoft hel atter,theCourtissueda
wr i
tofexecut i
onagai nstthedefendant s.Thewr i
thavingbeenr eturnedunsat i
sfi
ed, the
plainti
ffsmov edf ort hei ssuanceofawr itofexecut i
onagai nsttheSur ety'sbond(Rec.on
Appeal ,pp.46- 49) ,agai nstwhicht heSur etyf i
ledawr it
t enopposi ti
on( Id.pp.49)upont wo
grounds, namel y
, (1)Fai luretoprosecut eand( 2)Absenceofademandupont heSur etyf orthe
pay mentoft heamountdueundert hejudgment .Upont hesegr oundst heSur etypray edt he
Cour tnotonl ytodenyt hemot i
onf orexecut i
onagai nsti t
scount er-bondbutal sot he
foll
owi ng af
firmat iver elief
 :"
toreli
ev et heher einbondi ngcompanyofi tsliabil
i
ty,i
fany ,
under
thebondi nquest i
on"( I
d.p.54)TheCour tdeniedt hismot i
onont hegr oundsol el
yt hatno
prev i
ousdemandhadbeenmadeont heSur etyf orthesat isfacti
onoft hej udgment .Ther eafter
thenecessar ydemandwasmade, anduponf ailureoft heSur et
yt osat isfythejudgment ,the
plainti
ffsfil
edasecondmot i
onforexecut i
onagai nstthecount erbond.Ont hedatesetf orthe
hear i
ngt hereon, theCour t
,uponmot i
onoft heSur ety'
scounsel ,gr antedt helatt
eraper i
odof
fi
veday swithinwhi cht oanswert hemot ion.Uponi tsfai l
uret ofilesuchanswer ,
theCour t
grantedt hemot ionf orexecutionandt hecor r
espondi ngwr itwasi ssued.

Subsequently,t
heSur etymovedtoquasht hewr itont hegroundthatthesamewasi ssued
withouttherequir
edsummar yhearingpr ovi
dedf orinSect i
on17ofRul e59oft heRulesof
Court.AstheCour tdeniedthemotion, t
heSur etyappeal edtotheCour tofAppealsfrom such
orderofdenialandf r
om theonedeny i
ngi t
smot ionforr econsi
derat
ion(Id. 
p.97)
.Itsrecordon
appeal wasthenprintedasrequir
edbyt heRules, andinduet imeitf
ileditsbri
efrai
singtherei
n
noot herquesti
onbutt heonescov eredbyt hefollowingassignmentofer rors:

I
.ThattheHonorableCour
t aquo er
redi
nissuingi
tsorderdatedNov
ember2,1957,byhol
ding
theinci
dentassubmit
tedforresol
uti
on,
withoutasummar yheari
ngandcompli
ancewitht
he
othermandator
yrequi
rementsprovi
dedforinSect
ion17,Rule59oftheRul
esofCourt.

I
I.Thatt
heHonor
abl
eCour
t 
aquo 
err
edi
nor
der
ingt
hei
ssuanceofexecut
ionagai
nstt
heher
ein
bondi
ngcompany
-appel
l
ant
.

I
II
.Thatt
heHonor abl
eCourt 
aquo er
redindenyi
ngthemot i
ontoquashthewritofexecut
ion
f
il
edbytheherei
nbondingcompany -
appell
antaswellasit
ssubsequentmoti
onfor
r
econsi
derat
ion,
and/orinnotquashi
ngorsetti
ngasidethewri
tofexecut
ion.

Notoneoft heassi
gnmentoferr
ors—i
tisobv
ious—r
aisest
hequest
ionofl
ackofj
uri
sdi
cti
on,
nei
therdi
rectl
ynorindi
rect
ly.

Alt
houghtheappel
l
eesfai
ledtof
il
ethei
rbri
ef,t
heCourtofAppeal
s,onDecember11,
1962,
deci
dedthecaseaff
ir
mingtheor
dersappeal
edfrom.

OnJanuar y8, 1963—f iveday saf tert heSuretyrecei vednot iceoft hedeci sion,itf
iledamot i
on
aski ngf orext ensionoft imewi t
hi nwhi chtofil
eamot ionf orreconsideration.TheCour tof
Appeal sgrant edt hemot i
oni nitsr esol uti
onofJanuar y10oft hesamey ear.Twoday slat
erthe
Sur etyfiledapl eadi ngent it
ledMOTI ONTODI SMISS, al l
egingsubst antiall
yt hatappel leesacti
on
wasf il
edi nt heCour tofFi rstInstanceofCebuonJul y19, 1948f orther ecov eryoft hesum of
P1,908. 00onl y;thatamont hbefor et hatdateRepubl i
cActNo.296, ot
her wiseknownast he
Judi ciaryActof1948, hadal r
eadybecomeef fective,Sect i
on88ofwhi chpl acedwi thi nthe
original exclusivej uri
sdi cti
onofi nferiorcour t
sal lcivi
lact i
onswher ethev alueoft hesubj ect
-
mat t
erort heamountoft hedemanddoesnotexceedP2, 000.00,exclusiveofi nterestandcost s;
thatt heCour tofFi rstI nstancet her eforehadnoj urisdicti
ont ot r
yanddeci det hecase.Upon
thesepr emi sest heSur ety'smot ionpr ayedtheCour tofAppeal stosetasi dei t
sdeci sionandt o
dismi sst hecase.Byr esolutionofJanuar y16, 1963t heCour tofAppeal srequi r
edt heappel l
ees
toanswert hemot iont odismi ss, butt heyfail
edt odoso.Wher eupon, onMay20oft hesame
year ,theCour tresolv edt osetasi dei tsdecisi
onandt ocer ti
fythecaset oUs.Theper ti
nent
por ti
onsofi tsresol utionr eadasf ollows:

Itwouldindeedappearfrom therecordthattheactionatbar ,whi

chi sasui tf
orcollecti
onof
moneyi nthesum ofexactlyP1,908.00exclusi
v eofint
erest,wasoriginall
yinst
it
utedi nthe
CourtofFirstI
nstanceofCebuonJul y19,1948.Butaboutamont hpr iortothefi
li
ngoft he
complaint,morespecif
ical
l
yonJune17, 1948,theJudici
aryActof1948t ookeffect,deprivi
ng
theCourtofFirstI
nstanceoforiginalj
uri
sdicti
onov ercasesinwhicht hedemand, exclusiv
eof
i
nterest,
isnotmor ethanP2,000.00.(Secs.44[c]and86[b],R.A.No.296.)
Webel i
eve,t
herefor
e,thatthepointr
aisedi nappellant'
smotionisanimport
antonewhi ch
merit
sseriousconsiderat
ion.Asstated,t
hecompl aintwasfi
ledonJuly19,1948.Thiscase
ther
eforehasbeenpendi ngnowf oralmost15y ears,andthr
oughouttheent
ireproceedi
ng
appell
antneverrai
sedthequestionofj ur
isdict
ionunt i
laft
errecei
ptofthi
sCourt'
sadv er
se
deci
sion.

Therearet hreecasesdecidedbyt heHonor ableSupremeCour twhichmaybewor thyof

considerationinconnecti
onwi t
ht hiscase,namel y:TysonTan,etal.vs.Fil
i
pinasCompañi ade
Seguros, etal.
,G.R.No.L-
10096, Mar ch23, 1956;PindanganAgr i
cult
uralCo.,Inc.vs.JoseP.
Dans, et
c.,etal.,
G.R.No.L-14591, September26, 1962; andAlf
redoMont eli
bano, etal.vs.
Bacolod-Mur ci
aMi ll
i
ngCo.,Inc.,
G. R.No.L-15092, September29,1962, whereintheHonor abl
e
SupremeCour tfrownedupont he'undesirablepracti
ce'ofappell
antssubmi tt
ingt heircasefor
deci
sionandt henaccepti
ngt hejudgment ,iffavor
able,butatt
ackingitforl
ackofj uri
sdict
ion
whenadv erse.

Consider
ing,however,
thattheSupremeCour thasthe"exclusi
ve"appell
atejurisdict
ionover"al
l
casesinwhichthejuri
sdict
ionofanyinfer
iorcour
tisinissue"(See.1,Par.3[3]
, Judi
ciar
yActof
1948,asamended) ,wehavenochoi cebuttocert
if
y,asweher ebydocer tif
y,thiscasetot he
SupremeCour t.
1äwphï1.
ñët

ACCORDINGLY,
pursuantt
oSect
ion31oftheJudi
ciar
yActof1948asamended,
lett
her
ecor
d
oft
hiscasebef
orwardedtot
heSupremeCourt
.

Iti
sanundi sput edf actt hattheact i
oncommencedbyappel l
eesi nt heCourtofFi r
stI nstanceof
Cebuagai nstt heSi bonghanoyspouseswasf orther ecov eryoft hesum ofP1, 908.00onl y—an
amountwi thi
nt heor igi
nal exclusiv
ej uri
sdicti
onofi nf er
iorcour tsi naccordancewi t
ht he
provisionsoft heJudi ciaryActof1948whi chhadt akenef fectaboutamont hpr iortot hedat e
whent heact ionwascommenced.Tr uealsoi stherul ethatj uri
sdi cti
onovert hesubj ectmat ter
i
sconf erredupont hecour t
sexcl usivel
ybyl aw, andast hel ackofi taff
ect
st hev eryaut hori
tyof
thecour tt otakecogni zanceoft hecase, t
heobj ecti
onmayber aisedatanyst ageoft he
proceedi ngs.Howev er,consideringthef actsandci r
cumst ancesoft hepresentcase—whi ch
shallforthwi t
hbesetf orth—Wear eoft heopi ni
ont hatt heSur et yisnowbar r edby  l
aches  fr
om
i
nv okingt hispl eaatt hi
sl atehourf orthepur poseofannul i
ngev erythi
ngdoneher etoforeinthe
casewi t
hi tsact i
vepar tici
pation.
Asalr
eadystated,
theactionwascommencedintheCourtofFi
rstI
nst
anceofCebuonJuly19,
1948,
thatis,
almost 
fi
fteenyear
sbefor
e t
heSur
etyfi
ledi
tsmotiontodi
smissonJanuar
y12,
1963rai
singthequest
ionoflackofj
uri
sdi
cti
on 
fort
hefir
stti
me.

I
tmustber emember edthatal t
hought heacti
on,origi
nal
ly ,
wasexcl usivelyagainstthe
Sibonghanoyspousest heSur etybecameaquasi -partyt
her einsinceJuly31, 1948wheni tf
il
ed
acounter-bondforthedissoluti
onoft hewritofattachmenti ssuedbyt hecour toforigi
n
(RecordonAppeal ,
pp.15- 19).Sincethen,i
tacquir
edcer tainrightsandassumedspeci fi
c
obli
gati
onsi nconnecti
onwi ththependi ngcase,i
naccor dancewi t
hsect i
ons12and17, Rul
e57,
RulesofCour t(
Bautist
av s.Joaqui n,
46Phil.885;Kimpang&Co.v s.Javier,65Phil.170)
.

Upont hefi
lingofthefi
rstmot i
onforexecut
ionagainstthecounter-
bondtheSuretynotonl
y
fi
ledawr i
ttenopposit
iontheretopray
ingforit
sdenialbutalsoaskedforan
addit
ional
 affi
rmati
vereli
ef 
—t hati
tbereli
evedofit
sl i
abil
it
yunderthecounter
-bonduponthe
groundsrelieduponinsupportofit
soppositi
on—l ackofjurisdi
cti
onofthecourt 
aquo not
beingoneoft hem.

Then,attheheari
ngont hesecondmot i
onforexecut
ionagai
nstthecount
er-
bond,t
heSurety
appeared,thr
oughcounsel,
toaskf ort
imewithi
nwhichtofil
eanansweroropposit
iont
hereto.
Thismot i
onwasgr ant
ed,butinst
eadofsuchansweroropposit
ion,t
heSuret
yfil
edthemotion
todismissmentionedheret
ofore.

Apar t
ymaybeestoppedorbarredf
rom r
aisi
ngaquesti
oni
ndiff
erentwaysandfordi
ff
erent
reasons.Thuswespeakofest
oppel
 i
npais,orest
oppel
bydeedorbyrecor
d,andofestoppel
by l
aches.

Laches,inageneralsenseisfail
ureornegl
ect,
foranunreasonableandunexpl
ainedl
engthof
ti
me, t
odot hatwhich,byexerci
singduedil
i
gence,couldorshouldhavebeendoneearl
ier
;iti
s
negli
genceoromissiont oassertari
ghtwit
hinareasonableti
me, war
ranti
ngapresumpti
onthat
thepartyent
itl
edtoasser ti
teit
herhasabandoneditordecli
nedtoasserti
t.

Thedoct
ri
neofl
achesorof"
stal
edemands"i
sbasedupongr
oundsofpubl
i
cpol
i
cywhi
ch
requir
es,f
orthepeaceofsociet
y,t
hediscour
agementofstal
eclai
msand,unl
ikethest
atut
eof
l
imitati
ons,i
snotamer equesti
onofti
mebuti spri
nci
pal
lyaquesti
onoft
heinequit
yor
unfair
nessofpermit
ti
ngar i
ghtorcl
aimtobeenf or
cedorasser
ted.

Ithasbeenhel dthatapar tycannoti nvokethej ur

isdictionofacour tt osureaffir
mat i
ver el
i
ef
agai nsthisopponentand, afterobtainingorf ail
ingtoobt ai
nsuchr elief,
repudiateorquest i
on
thatsamej ur
isdicti
on(Deanv s.Dean, 136Or .694, 86A. L.R.79).Int hecasej ustcit
ed, byway
ofexpl ainingther ul
e,itwasf urthersai dthatthequest ionwhet hert hecour thadj ur
isdict
ion
eit
heroft hesubj ect-
matt eroft heact ionoroft hepar ti
eswasnoti mpor tantinsuchcases
becauset hepar tyisbarredf rom suchconduct  
notbecauset hej udgmentoror deroft hecourt
i
sv ali
dandconcl usiveasanadj udication,butforther easont hatsuchapr acti
cecannotbe
tolerated —obv i
ouslyforr easonsofpubl i
cpolicy.

Further
mor e,i
thasal sobeenhel dthataftervol
unt aril
ysubmi tt
ingacauseandencount er
ingan
adversedeci si
onont hemer i
ts,i
tistoolatefort helosert oquesti
ont hejur
isdict
ionorpowerof
thecour t(Peasev s.Rathbun-Jonesetc.,243U. S.273, 61L.Ed.715,37S.Ct .283;St.Louisetc.
vs.McBr ide,141U. S.127,35L.Ed.659) .Andi nLittletonvs.Burgess,16Wy o.58, t
heCour tsaid
thatiti
snotr i
ghtforapar t
ywhohasaf firmedandi nv okedthejur
isdi
ctionofacour tina
parti
cularmat tertosecureanaf fi
rmativereli
ef,toaf terwardsdenythatsamej ur
isdi
ctionto
escapeapenal ty.

Upont hi
ssamepr i
ncipleiswhatWesai dinthet hreecasesment i
onedint heresoluti
onofthe
Cour tofAppealsofMay20, 1963( supr
a)—t otheef fectthatwefrownupont he"undesir
able
practice"ofapar t
ysubmi tti
nghi scasefordecisionandt henaccepti
ngt hejudgment ,onl
yif
favorable,andattacki
ngi tforlackofjuri
sdicti
on, whenadv erse—aswel lasin Pi
ndañganet c.
vs.Dans, etal.
,G.R.L-14591, September26, 1962; Mont eli
bano,etal
.,
vs.Bacol od-Murci
a
Mill
ingCo. ,I
nc.,G.R.L-15092; YoungMenLaborUni onet c.vs.TheCourtofIndustrial
Relati
onet
al.
,G. R.L-
20307, Feb.26,1965, and Meji
av s.Lucas, 100Phi l
.p.277.

Thef actsofthiscaseshowt hatf r

om thetimet heSur et ybecameaquasi -partyonJul y31, 1948,
i
tcoul dhaver ai
sedt hequestionoft helackofj ur
isdictionoftheCour tofFirstInstanceofCebu
totakecogni zanceoft hepresentact i
onbyr easonoft hesum ofmoneyi nvolvedwhi ch,
accordingtot helawt heninforce, waswithi
nt heoriginal excl
usiv
ejurisdi
cti
onofi nf eriorcourts.
Itf
ail
edt odoso.I nstead,atsev eralst
agesoft hepr oceedi ngsinthecourt 
aquo  aswel lasi n
theCour tofAppeals, i
tinvokedt hejur
isdi
cti
onofsai dcour tstoobtai
naf fi
rmat i
ver eliefand
submi tt
editscasef oraf i
naladjudicati
onont hemer it
s.I twasonlyafteranadv ersedeci si
on
wasr enderedbytheCourtofAppealsthatitf
inal
l
ywokeupt oraiset
hequestionofj
uri
sdict
ion.
Wer ewet osancti
onsuchconductoni tspart
,Wewoul dineffectbedecl
ari
ngasuselessallthe
proceedingshadinthepresentcasesinceitwascommencedonJul y19,1948andcompel the
j
udgmentcr edi
tor
stogoupt hei
rCalvaryoncemor e.Theinequit
yandunfai
rnessoft
hisisnot
onlypatentbutrevol
ti
ng.

Comi ngnowt ot
hemeri
tsoftheappeal:
aftergoi
ngov ertheentir
erecor
d,Wehav ebecome
persuadedthatWecandonothi
ngbetterthantoquote i
nt ot
o,withappr
oval
,thedeci
sion
renderedbytheCour
tofAppeal
sonDecember11, 1962asf oll
ows:

InCivi
l CaseNo.R-660oftheCour tofFi
rstI
nstanceofCebu, whichwasasuitforcol
l
ect i
onofa
sum ofmoney ,awr i
tofat
tachmentwasi ssuedagainstdefendants'
proper
ti
es.Theattachment
,
howev er,wassubsequent
lydischargedunderSecti
on12ofRul e59upont hefi
li
ngby
defendantsofabondsubscr i
bedbyMani laSurety&Fidel
it
yCo. ,
Inc.

Af
tert
ri
al,
judgmentwasr
ender
edi
nfav
orofpl
aint
if
fs.

Thewr i
tofexecut i
onagai nstdefendantshavingbeenret
urnedtot
all
yunsati
sfi
ed,plai
nti
ff
s
mov ed,underSection17ofRul e59,fori
ssuanceofwritofexecut
ionagai
nstManilaSurety&
Fidel
it
yCo. ,
Inc.toenforcet heobli
gationofthebond.Butthemotionwas,uponthesurety'
s
oppositi
on,deniedont hegr oundthatther
ewas" noshowingthatademandhadbeenmade, by
theplai
ntif
fstot hebondingcompanyf orpaymentoftheamountdueundert hej
udgment "
(RecordonAppeal ,p.60).

Hence,pl
aint
iffsmadethenecessarydemandupont hesuretyf
orsat
isf
act
ionofthejudgment ,
anduponthel att
er'
sfai
l
uretopaytheamountdue, plai
nti
ff
sagainf
il
edamot i
ondatedOct ober
31,1957,
forissuanceofwri
tofexecutionagainstthesurety
,wit
hnoti
ceofheari
ngon
November2,1957.OnOct ober31,1957,thesuretyrecei
vedcopyofsai
dmotionandnot i
ceof
heari
ng.

Itappear
sthatwhent
hemot i
onwascal
ledonNov
ember2,
1957,
thesuret
y'
scounselasked
thathebegivent
imewit
hinwhicht
oanswert
hemoti
on,
andsoanorderwasissuedi
nopen
court,
asfol
lows:
1äwphï
1.ñët
Aspr ayedfor,At
ty.JoseP.Soberano,
Jr.,counself
ortheManil
aSurety&Fidel
i
tyCo. ,
Inc.
,Cebu
Branch,is 
giv
enunt i
lWednesday,November  
6,1957,
 t
ofil
ehisanswer 
tothemot i
onforthe
i
ssuanceofawr i
tofexecuti
ondat edOctober30,1957ofthepl
aint
if
fs, 
aft
erwhichthi
sincident
shallbedeemedsubmi t
tedforr
esolut
ion.

SOORDERED.

Gi
veni
nopencour
t,t
his2nddayofNov
ember
,1957,
atCebuCi
ty,
Phi
l
ippi
nes.

(
Sgd.
)JOSEM.MENDOZA

Judge

(
Recor
donAppeal
,pp.

64-
65,
emphasi
sour
s)

Sincethesur
ety
'scounselfai
l
edt of
il
eanyanswerorobjecti
onwithi
ntheperiodgivenhi
m, the
court,
onDecember7, 1957,i
ssuedanordergranti
ngpl
aint
if
fs'
mot i
onforexecuti
onagainstthe
suret
y;andonDecember12, 1957,t
hecorrespondi
ngwri
tofexecuti
onwasi ssued.

OnDecember24, 1957,thesuret
yfi
ledamot i
ontoquashthewri
tofexecut
ionontheground
thatthesamewas" i
ssuedwi t
houtt
herequir
ementsofSecti
on17,Rul
e59oft heRul
esofCourt
havingbeencompl i
edwi th,
"morespeci
fi
call
y,t
hatthesamewasissuedwit
houttherequi
red
"summar yhear
ing".Thi
smot i
onwasdeniedbyorderofFebr
uar
y10,1958.

OnFebruar
y25,1958,
thesuret
yfi
l
edamotionforreconsider
ati
onoftheabov
e-st
atedor
derof
deni
al;
whichmoti
onwaslikewi
sedeni
edbyorderofMar ch26,1958.

Fr
om t
heabov
e-st
atedor
der
sofFebr
uar
y10,
1958andMar
ch26,
1958—deny
ingt
hesur
ety
's
moti
ontoquashthewritofexecut
ionandmot
ionf
orr
econsi
der
ati
on,
respect
ivel
y—t
hesur
ety
hasi
nter
posedtheappealonhand.

Thesuretyi
nsiststhatt
helowercourtshoul
dhavegr
ant
edi
tsmoti
ontoquashthewritof
execut
ionbecauset hesamewasi ssuedwit
houtt
hesummar
yhear
ingrequi
redbySecti
on17of
Rule59,whi
chr eads;

"Sec.17.  
Whenexecut i
onr et
urnedunsatisfi
ed,
r ecoveryhaduponbond.—I ftheexecutionbe
returnedunsatisfi
edinwhol eorinpart,
thesuret yorsureti
esonanybondgi v
enpur suanttothe
prov i
sionsofthisrol
etosecur ethepaymentoft hejudgmentshallbecomefi
nallychargedon
suchbond, andboundt opayt otheplai
ntif
fupondemandt heamountdueundert hejudgment,
whi chamountmayber ecoveredfr
om suchsur etyorsur et
iesaf
ternoti
ceand summar yhear
ing
i
nt hesameact ion.
"(Emphasisour s)

Summar yhear i
ngis"noti ntendedt obecar ri
edoni nthef ormal manneri nwhichor di
nary
act i
onsar epr osecut
ed"( 83C. J.S.792).I
tis,rather ,
apr ocedur ebywhi chaquest i
oni sresolv
ed
"withdispat ch,withthel eastpossi bledelay,
andi npr eferencet oordinaryl
egalandr egular
j
udi cialproceedings"(Ibid,p.790) .Whati sessent ialisthat" t
hedef endantisnotif
iedor
summonedt oappearandi sgivenanoppor t
uni t
yt ohearwhati surgeduponhi m,andt o
i
nt erposeadef ense,afterwhi chf oll
owsanadj udicationoft her ight
soft hepart
ies"(Ibi
d.,pp.
793- 794);andast ot
heext entandl at
it
udeoft hehear ing, t
hesamewi l
lnatur
all
yli
eupont he
discreti
onoft hecour t
,dependi ngupont heattendi ngci rcumst ancesandt henatureoft he
i
nci dentupf orconsi
der ation.

I
nt hecaseatbar ,t
hesuretyhadbeennotif
iedoftheplaint
if
fs'moti
onforexecutionandoft he
datewhent hesamewoul dbesubmi t
tedforconsiderati
on.I
nfact,t
hesurety'
scounsel was
presenti
ncour twhenthemot i
onwascalled,anditwasuponhi srequestthatthecourt 
a
quo gavehim aperiodoffourdayswi
thi
nwhi chtof i
l
eananswer .Yetheallowedt hatperi
odto
l
apsewi thoutf
ili
ngananswerorobjecti
on.Thesur etycannotnow,ther
efore,complainthati
t
wasdepr iv
edofitsdayincourt.

Iti
sarguedt hatthesurety
'scounseldi
dnotf i
l
eananswert othemotion"fort
hesimplereason
thatall
itsdefensescanbesetupdur i
ngthehearingoft
hemot i
onevenifthesamear enot
reducedtowr it
ing"(Appel
lant
'sbri
ef,
p.4).Thereisobvi
ousl
ynomer i
tinthispret
ensebecause,
asstatedabov e,therecor
dwillshowthatwhent hemotionwascal
led,whatthesuret
y'
s
counsel didwast oaskt hathebeallowedandgi venti
met ofi
leananswer.Moreover,
itwas
statedintheor dergi
v eninopencour tuponrequestofthesur
ety'
scounselt
hatafterthef
our-
dayper iodwithinwhichtof i
leananswer ,"
thei
ncidentshal
lbedeemedsubmi t
tedfor
resoluti
on";andcounsel apparent
lyagreed,astheorderwasissueduponhisi
nstanceandhe
i
nt erposednoobj ect
iont her
eto.

Iti
salsourgedt hatalt
houghaccor di ngtoSection17ofRule59, supr a,ther ei
snoneedf ora
separat
eact i
on, theremust ,howev er,beasepar at
ejudgmentagai nstt hesur etyinordert ohold
i
tli
ableont hebond( Appell
ant '
sBrief ,
p.15).Notso,inouropini
on.Abondf il
edf ordi
schar geof
att
achmenti s,perSect i
on12ofRul e59,"t
osecur ethepaymentt othepl ainti
ffofanyjudgment
hemayr ecov erintheact i
on,"andst ands"inplaceofthepropert
ysor eleased".Hence, afterthe
j
udgmentf ort heplainti
ffhasbecomeexecut or
yandt heexecuti
oni s" returnedunsat i
sfied"(Sec.
17,Rule59),asi nthiscase,theliabili
tyofthebondaut omati
call
yat tachesand, i
nfail
ureoft he
suret
ytosat i
sf ythejudgmentagai nstt hedefendantdespit
edemandt her efor
, wri
tofexecut i
on
mayissueagai nstthesuretytoenf orcetheobligat
ionofthebond.

UPONALLTHEFOREGOING,theorder
sappeal
edfr
om ar
eher
ebyaf
fi
rmed,
wit
hcost
sagai
nst
theappel
l
antMani
l
aSur
etyandFidel
it
yCompany,
Inc.