FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 19135. December 6, 1922. ]
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUNETA MOTOR CO., INC. and FIDELITY & SURETY CO. OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Defendants-Appellants.
Ross & Lawrence and Abreu & Buencamino for Appellants.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
WHEN MOTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. — Where there is no motion to reverse and remand with leave to file amended pleadings and offer further proof, and the plaintiff moves that the action be dismissed without prejudice, the motion should be granted.
D E C I S I O N
STATEMENT
February 9, 1921, the defendant Luneta Motor Company, as principal, and the defendant Fidelity & Surety Company, is surety, executed to the Collector of Customs of the port of Manila a certain bond for P25,000, for the purpose of making entry of certain goods, wares, and merchandise imported in the steamship Matawa, in and by which they bound themselves within four months to produce to the Insular Collector of Customs the original bill of lading covering the shipment, duly indorsed, showing the ownership of the merchandise to be the Luneta Motor Company, and that upon the production of such bill of lading within the four months, the bond should become null and void; otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect.
For failure to deliver the bill of lacing within the terms of the bond, this action was brought, and upon the petition of the surety company, Carlos Young was made a defendant, for the reason that he was surety for the surety company.
The defendants admit the execution of the bond, and, as a further and separate defense, allege that the bond was given in accordance with article 1316 of the Administrative Code "by virtue of which the P25,000 represented by said obligation only guaranteed the payment of damages which be occasioned to the original owner for the delivery of the merchandise to the defendant Luneta Motor Co., Inc." "That the defendant Luneta Motor Company, Inc. has offered and is still offering to the Collector of Customs, as well as to the International Banking Corporation, the holder of the bill of lading relating to the aforesaid merchandise, the return of the merchandise mentioned, but none of them has accepted said return on account of which this action was commenced by this defendant against the International Banking Corporation and the Collector of Customs in the Court of First Instance of Manila, etc." "That neither the Collector of Customs nor the aforesaid International Banking Corporation has suffered damages for the delivery of the merchandise in question to the Luneta Motor Company, Inc.," and pray that the plaintiff be compelled to accept the return of the merchandise and to pay the cost.
The defendants having admitted the execution of the bond and the breach having been shown, the trial court, without any proof of actual damages, rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount of the bond, from which all of the defendants appeal, contending that the lower court "erred in holding the defendants liable on the bond without proof of damage," and "in sentencing defendants to pay jointly and severally unto the Government of the Philippine Islands the sum of P25,000, with interest."cralaw virtua1aw library
JOHNS, J.:
February 9, 1921, the defendant Luneta Motor Company, as principal, and the defendant Fidelity & Surety Company, is surety, executed to the Collector of Customs of the port of Manila a certain bond for P25,000, for the purpose of making entry of certain goods, wares, and merchandise imported in the steamship Matawa, in and by which they bound themselves within four months to produce to the Insular Collector of Customs the original bill of lading covering the shipment, duly indorsed, showing the ownership of the merchandise to be the Luneta Motor Company, and that upon the production of such bill of lading within the four months, the bond should become null and void; otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect.
For failure to deliver the bill of lacing within the terms of the bond, this action was brought, and upon the petition of the surety company, Carlos Young was made a defendant, for the reason that he was surety for the surety company.
The defendants admit the execution of the bond, and, as a further and separate defense, allege that the bond was given in accordance with article 1316 of the Administrative Code "by virtue of which the P25,000 represented by said obligation only guaranteed the payment of damages which be occasioned to the original owner for the delivery of the merchandise to the defendant Luneta Motor Co., Inc." "That the defendant Luneta Motor Company, Inc. has offered and is still offering to the Collector of Customs, as well as to the International Banking Corporation, the holder of the bill of lading relating to the aforesaid merchandise, the return of the merchandise mentioned, but none of them has accepted said return on account of which this action was commenced by this defendant against the International Banking Corporation and the Collector of Customs in the Court of First Instance of Manila, etc." "That neither the Collector of Customs nor the aforesaid International Banking Corporation has suffered damages for the delivery of the merchandise in question to the Luneta Motor Company, Inc.," and pray that the plaintiff be compelled to accept the return of the merchandise and to pay the cost.
The defendants having admitted the execution of the bond and the breach having been shown, the trial court, without any proof of actual damages, rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount of the bond, from which all of the defendants appeal, contending that the lower court "erred in holding the defendants liable on the bond without proof of damage," and "in sentencing defendants to pay jointly and severally unto the Government of the Philippine Islands the sum of P25,000, with interest."cralaw virtua1aw library
JOHNS, J.:
As stated by the appellants, there is no evidence of any actual damages sustained by anyone, and the judgment was rendered by reason of a breach of the conditions of the bond and without any further proof.
This court in Government of the Philippine Islands v. union Guaranty Co., Ltd., R. G. No, 16700, 1 and Government of the Philippine Islands v. Tan Liuan & Co. and Union Guaranty Co., Ltd., R. G. No. 18139, 2 under almost a similar state of facts, dismissed the complaints on the ground "that there is not a word of testimony to show the amount of damages, if any, suffered by the Yokohama Specie Bank, the holder of the bill of lading." That is this case.
The Attorney-General, recognizing the force of those decisions, has requested that the action be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs rights. It is very apparent that the plaintiff has a cause of action. Some of the members of the court, including the writer, are of the opinion that upon the facts shown, the case should be reversed and remanded with leave to the parties in interest to file amended pleadings and offer any further proof. The plaintiff, having requested that the action be dismissed without prejudice, the majority of the court are of the opinion that the request should be granted.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and considered by the court that the judgment of the lower court is reversed without prejudice to any of plaintiffs legal rights, and that neither party recover costs on this appeal. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
This court in Government of the Philippine Islands v. union Guaranty Co., Ltd., R. G. No, 16700, 1 and Government of the Philippine Islands v. Tan Liuan & Co. and Union Guaranty Co., Ltd., R. G. No. 18139, 2 under almost a similar state of facts, dismissed the complaints on the ground "that there is not a word of testimony to show the amount of damages, if any, suffered by the Yokohama Specie Bank, the holder of the bill of lading." That is this case.
The Attorney-General, recognizing the force of those decisions, has requested that the action be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs rights. It is very apparent that the plaintiff has a cause of action. Some of the members of the court, including the writer, are of the opinion that upon the facts shown, the case should be reversed and remanded with leave to the parties in interest to file amended pleadings and offer any further proof. The plaintiff, having requested that the action be dismissed without prejudice, the majority of the court are of the opinion that the request should be granted.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and considered by the court that the judgment of the lower court is reversed without prejudice to any of plaintiffs legal rights, and that neither party recover costs on this appeal. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Promulgated January 25, 1922, not reported.
2. Promulgated May 25, 1922, not reported.
