This is a  petition for certiorari to review the decision of the  Court of Appeals, modifying  the judgment of  the Court of First Instance of Cebu in Civil Case  No. R-362, by excluding from the said decision the award of damages in favor  of  petitioners.

The  statement  of the  case  and the facts involved,  as well as the  different  issues raised therein  are adequately and  correctly narrated in the well-prepared appealed decision, penned by Justice  Dionisio  de Leon,  and we  are quoting with favor the pertinent portions thereof:

"This  ejectment case  started  in the Municipal Court  of  Cebu City  on February 28, 1947.  The  plaintiffs are  the  owners  of a lot situated at  the  corner of  P.  del  Rosario and  D. Jakosalem Streets Cebu City, and the defendants are  the owners of the house built  upon an  area  of  209.89  square meters of said lot.  The plaintiffs seek the payment  by  the  defendants of  the  sum of P19,249.80  by  way  of  unpaid rentals from May,  1945, to March, 1947, when they filed  an amended complaint,  at the rate  of P5.00 per square mete.r a month, the rental asked  in their letter of demand received by the  defendants  sometime  on May 8,  1946,  and  the ejectment  of  the defendants  from the lot. Upon an affidavit of attachment subscribed  and sworn to  by Filemon  K.  Perez, one of the plaintiffs,  and  attached to the original complaint,  alleging that plaintiffs, have a cause  of action against the defendants  and  the attachment prayed for comes under one of the cases  mentioned in Section  1, Rule 59,  of the  Rules of Court the  Municipal Court, issued an ex-parte  order of attachment  upon the  filing of   the necessary bond,  which  was  executed by  the  Sheriff's  office  on March 3, 1947, by  attaching a piano,  typewriter office furniture, boxes  of  medicine and other drugs, and  the house belonging  to the defendants.

"In  their answer and amended answer, the  defendants  alleged, among others,  that  the rate  of rental fixed  by the plaintiffs was illegal,  exorbitant  and unconscionable,  and asked, by  way   of counterclaim,  for damages, caused  by the  attachment  on  their properties which was  supposedly without justification.

"On July  9, 1947 the Municipal Court rendered judgment, ordering the  defendants  to vacate  the  premises,  fixing  the rental   at P50.00 a month from April, 1946,*and at P320.00 a month from the time of extrajudicial demand on May 8, 1946,  or  a total of P4.469.03 up  to  June, 1947, and condemning the defendants to pay said sum and the further sum of P320.00 a month as rental from July 1947, until  they finally vacate the  premises.

"Defendants  appealed to the  Court of  First Instance  of Cebu. They  failed, however, to file the necessary supersedeas bond and  to pay either to the plaintiffs or to the Clerk of Court the rentals  at P320.00 per month  beginning July, 1947,  pursuant to  Section  8, Rule 72, Rules of Court, Upon  application of  the plaintiffs, an order of execution was  issued by the Court of First  Instance on March  15, 1948, and a writ  of execution  directed against the defendants issued on March 17, 1948, for the total sum of P7,349.03, representing the back rentals of  P4,469.03, as fixed  by  the  Municipal Court, and current rentals from July, 1947, to March,  1948.   Thereafter, the order  of  execution  was  levied on  the house  of  defendants,   on monthly rentals of said house, a bank deposit  in  the sum of P300.00, and goods and furniture also  belonging  to  defendants.  More rents were  garnished sometime  thereafter.  On  June  19, 1948, the furniture, medicine  and other drugs attached by  the Sheriff's Office by  virtue of  the order  of  attachment  issued  by the  Municipal Court  on March  3, 1947, were sold at public  auction, for P1,000.00. On  June 30, 1948, the house was sold to one  Conrado D. Cabuguas for the sum of P200.00. On  December 7,  1948,  the Sheriff's Office also garnished the sum of  P246.00 deposited by the defendants with the Clerk of Court.

"In the meantime, the defendants filed an amended answer to the complaint in the Court of First Instance,  alleging,  among others, that the rate of rental of P5.00 per square meter a month was illegal, excessive  and  unjust, and, by way of counterclaim asked for  damages by  reason of the alleged wrongful  attachment and sale of their properties.

"After  trial,  judgment  was rendered  by the  lower court,  the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

'The  court  awards the following  damages  to the defendants:

"(1) P1.500.00 value  of the piano attached  and  sold;
"(2) P5,000.00 assessed value of their  house;
"(3) P8,000.00, worth of their stock at the time it was attached;
"(4) P246.00,  the  sum deposited  in, consignation by  the defendants which was later  attached and levied upon in the execution.

'The court makes no  findings for  damages  on the loss  of  the goodwill of the drugstore of the defendants and the alleged  resultant mental suffering and illness claimed by them.  Also no finding as to costs.

'The findings of the  City Court ordering the defendants to vacate from the premises and remove  their house, although having already become academic, is hereby confirmed.

'The Provincial Sheriff of Cebu is hereby absolved of  any  responsibility, having performed his duty in  accordance with legal  orders of this Court

"The  plaintiffs  have brought  this  appeal, contending  that  the lower court erred:

'1. In holding  that the plaintiff-appellants  are liable for  damages arising from  legal orders, executed by the Deputy  Provincial Sheriff of Cebu after the  said trial court holds that "the  Provincial Sheriff of Cebu is hereby absolved  of any responsibility, having performed his duty in accordance with legal orders of this  Court; and,

'2. In disturbing the decision of the Municipal Court fixing  the1 amount of rentals payable to the plaintiff-appellants by the defendant-appellees, after the  said  trial court ordered  it executed and after  the  same holds that "the findings of the City Court  ordering the defendants to vacate  from the premises and  remove their house, although  having already become academic, is  hereby  confirmed.*     *     *"

Petitioners  assign  eight errors  supposedly  committed by the Court  of Appeals.   Because of the view we take of this case, we find it unnecessary to  discuss most of said alleged  errors.  The  first  error  assigned  is as follows:

"The  Honorable Court  of Appeals erred  in departing from  the usual  procedure  enunciated under the  provision of  Section 5, Rule 53 of the  Rules  of Court which provides  that 'no error which does not affect  the jurisdiction over  the subject matter  will  be considered unless stated in the assignment  of errors and  properly argued in the brief,' when  it lengthily justified and delved into the question  of whether the attachment levied on the properties of the defendant-appellees  was lawful  or actionable for damages,  a question   which was not assigned as error  nor argued in the brief  of the  plaintiff-appellants."

Strictly speaking, petitioners  are right in that plaintiffs Mamerta Macasero,  et al., respondents herein,  in their   appeal in the  Court of Appeals did  not allege  or assign   as error of the trial court, its holding that the issuance   of the writ  of  attachment by the Municipal Court of Cebu   was unlawful.   However, we should  not forget that although under Section 5, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court, "no error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject    matter will be considered unless stated in the assignment    of errors and properly argued in the brief", nevertheless, the  appellate  tribunal, under  the same rule, may motu proprio consider plain  errors, even  if  not specified and raised by the  parties.^[1]  The award of damages made by the trial court  was precisely based on the alleged wrongful issuance of  the writ of attachment.  Naturally, that question was  important and the Court of Appeals was fully justified in  discussing and determining that decisive question,  though not expressly and  specifically assigned by plaintiffs-appellants  in  their  appeal  to  the Court  of Appeals.

Was the issuance of the writ of attachment by the Cebu City court really wrongful as found by the trial court so as to justify the award of damages  to the  defendants? Ordinarily, damages are awarded by reason of the issuance of a writ of attachment when the party, ordinarily the plaintiff, who  had  asked for and obtained the writ, loses in the action.  In the present case, the plaintiffs won the case in the  Municipal Court  of Cebu and  in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and yet the latter court ordered them  to  pay  damages to the defendants  on the ground that the  writ of attachment had wrongfully been issued.

After carefully  studying the record, we  agree with the Court of Appeals that the, writ of attachment had not been wrongfully or improvidently  issued  to  the plaintiffs, respondents herein.   Rather, it  was the fault of the defendants,  appellants  herein, in  not pursuing the  remedies available to them,  such as the dissolution  of the writ of attachment by asking for a hearing and the opportunity to introduce  evidence to prove  that the petition for the writ of attachment had no basis.   We quote the Court of Appeals on this point:

"The  defendants should have moved  to quash the attachment before  or even after their properties have been  attached (Section 13, Rule 59), by traversing the contents of the affidavit of attachment.  A hearing on the motion would be had  for the reception of defendants' evidence  on the falsity of the recitals of the affidavit, otherwise a denial of such right to hearing would  be tantamount to abuse  of  discretion.  (National Coconut  Corporation  vs. Pecson, 90 Phil., 809)" * * *.

All  the trouble and financial difficulties that visited the appellants herein were mainly due to their  own fault and negligence  Had they taken the precaution  to file a supersedeas bond in their appeal to  the Court of  First Instance, and had they religiously paid the rentals for the property they were occupying, as fixed by the court, there would have been no execution, of the judgment  against them. As to the alleged wrongful issuance of the writ of attachment,  we quote with favor  the pertinent  portion of the appealed  decision with which  we are in conformity:

"*  *  * The affidavit was  executed  by  one  of the plaintiffs, and it stated that he has personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the complaint;  that  a sufficient cause  of  action  exists; that the case is  one of those contemplated in Section 1, Rule 59, Rules of Court; that the plaintiffs have no security  for  their demand; and, that the amount due  the plaintiffs is, over and above  all legal counterclaim,  as  much  as  the sum for which the attachment is sought. While the affidavit must he criticized as being couched in general terms,  as  for instance, where  it is merely stated that the case is one of those mentioned in Section 1,  Rule 59,  the  ground relied upon for  the attachment  is  readily ascertainable  by  a  cursory reading of the writ of attachment dated March 3,  1947,  and  this circumstance  yields  to the presumption that the Municipal Court examined  and gave full  credence  to the  recitals of  the  affidavit, verified  that a  cause of action  against  the defendants  existed, and was convinced that the issuance of the attachment falls under Section  1  (e)  of Rule 59, that is, that the defendants 'are about or are now transferring their properties with the intent to defraud their creditors, especially  the herein plaintiffs.'  There is  no proof that this ground for attachment was untrue.  The Municipal Court stated in its judgment that there was justification for the issuance of the  writ  of  attachment,  while the Court of First  Instance merely commented that it was wrong to issue the writ of attachment without conducting a preliminary hearing on the  petition for attachment,  considering that the basis  of the amount of  the attachment was  the new and  increased rate of  rental unilaterally fixed by the  plaintiffs.  The total  amount sought in the original complaint  was P11,149.80.  However, the proceeds of the  sale of the house  and goods, as well as the amount of  the defendants' bank deposit, totalled  only  P1,500.00, while  the total amount  of  the judgment  of  the Municipal Court  alone was  P4,469.03,

We  deem it unnecessary to discuss  the other  points raised by petitioners-appellants.

In view of the foregoing, the appealed  decision is hereby affirmed,  with  costs.

Paras,  C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and  Endencia, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Moran: Comments on the Rules of Court (1957 ed.), Vol. 1, pp. 737-739, citing the cases of Hernandez vs. Andal, 78 Phil., 196; and Relativo vs. Castro, et al., 76  Phil., 563.