Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Calo vs Roldan
Facts
Issue:
Held:
II. Attachment
A. Nature
Lim vs Lazaro
Facts: Petitioner L filed a complaint for sum of money (the sum of Php 2,160,000.00) with
prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary attachment against Respondent Spouses Z. The
Parties entered into a compromise agreement, wherein Respondent Spouses Z agreed to
pay Petitioner on an installment basis. Respondent Spouses moved for the lifting of the
writ of preliminary attachment based on the compromised agreement entered by the
parties.
Held:
By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court (Rule 57), is an
ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to
realize upon the relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action; it
is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the main action. As such, it is available during its
pendency which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and
interests during the interim, awaiting the ultimate effects of a final judgment in the case.
In this relation, while the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the length of time within which
an attachment lien shall continue to subsist after the rendition of a final judgment,
jurisprudence dictates that the said lien continues until the debt is paid, or the sale is had
under execution issued on the judgment or until the judgment is satisfied, or the
attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by law.
Hence, given that the foregoing debt remains unpaid, the attachment of properties should
continue to subsist.
The parties to the compromise agreement should not be deprived of the protection
provided by an attachment lien especially in an instance where one reneges on his
obligations under the agreement, as in the case at bench, where Antonio Garcia failed to
hold up his own end of the deal, so to speak.
Ligon vs RTC
II A. 1. Stages of Attachment
Facts: Petitioner T, et al filed before the RTC a complaint for sum of money and damages
against Respondent, and filed five days after an ex-parte Motion for Issuance of a Writ of
Attachment. The Writ of Attachment was served upon the respondent on November
19,2002 while the summons together with the complaint was served on the 20th of
November.
Held:
In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals,43 this Court held that the grant of the provisional remedy
of attachment involves three stages:
Second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and
For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ commences,
the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction,
the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any
order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.44
Facts: Petitioner T, et al filed before the RTC a complaint for sum of money and damages
against Respondent, and filed five days after an ex-parte Motion for Issuance of a Writ of
Attachment. The Writ of Attachment was served upon the respondent on November
19,2002 while the summons together with the complaint was served on the 20th of
November.
Issues: When does the Court acquire jurisdiction over the respondent?
Held:
The acts done by the Court prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of
defendant x x x issuance of summons, order of attachment and writ of attachment x x
x these do not and cannot bind and affect the defendant until and unless
jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained by the court, either by service on
him of summons or other coercive process or his voluntary submission to the court’s
authority.
It is indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, but also upon consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the
complaint against him and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and the
grounds therefor that prior or contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of attachment,
service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment,
the applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the order must be served upon him.
II.B.2 Plaintiff
Facts: Petitioner JB is the son of respondent FB and JT. JB filed against his father and
mother a civil action for annulment of sale of a large estate known as Hacienda Jalajala.
Respondent FB and JT filed several counterclaims against their son JB.
Held:
Professional Video, Inc. v. TESDA, G.R. No. 155504, June 26, 2009
Facts: Petitioner V entered into a contract of sale with a government instrumentality,
T. T failed to pay Petitioner V, which forced Petitioner V to file a complaint for sum
of money with Preliminary Attachment against T.
Held:
Public funds cannot be the object of garnishment proceedings even if the consent
to be sued had been previously granted and the state liability adjudged.
Government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or
garnishment to satisfy judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public
policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding
appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the
State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public
funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.
Issue: Is fraud alleged in the complaint enough to sustain the writ of preliminary
attachment?
Held:
To sustain an attachment on this ground, it must be shown that the debtor in contracting
the debt or incurring the obligation intended to defraud the creditor. The fraud must relate
to the execution of the agreement and must have been the reason which induced the
other party into giving consent which he would not have otherwise given. To constitute a
ground for attachment in Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, fraud should be
committed upon contracting the obligation sued upon. A debt is fraudulently contracted if
at the time of contracting it the debtor has a preconceived plan or intention not to pay, as it
is in this case.15
The applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must sufficiently show the factual
circumstances of the alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the
debtor’s mere non-payment of the debt or failure to comply with his obligation.16
Issue:Is the removal and rescue of the buses an act in the purview of removal of
properties with intent to defraud creditors?
Held:
The several buses attached are nearly junks. However, upon permission by the sheriff,
five of them were repaired, but they were substituted with five buses which were also in
the same condition as the five repaired ones before the repair. This cannot be the removal
intended as ground for the issuance of a writ of attachment under section 1 (e), Rule 57, of
the Rules of Court. The repair of the five buses was evidently motivated by a desire to
serve the interest of the riding public, clearly not to defraud its creditors, as there is no
showing that they were not put on the run after their repairs, as was the obvious purpose
of their substitution to be placed in running condition.
Facts:
PBC filed a motion for attachment based on Sec. 1 (b) and (d) Rule 57;
supported by an affidavit executed by an Assistant Manager of PBC. The
affidavit merely contains statement that the latter have understood the content
of the motion and its true and correct.
Issue:
Is the affidavit submitted by PBC enough to sustain an order of attachment?
Held:
No. A mere citation or reproduction of the rules , without more, cannot serve as
good ground for issuing a writ of preliminary attachment. An order of
attachment cannot be issued on a general averment, such as one
ceremoniously quoting from a pertinent rule.
The affidavit of the representative of PBc lacks the particularity that the court
may discern whether or not a writ of attachment should issue.
Held:Yes. The rule provides that before a writ of attachment may issue a bond
must first be filed to answer for all cost which may be adjudge to the adverse
party and for the damages he may sustain by reason of the attachment. The
state is exempt from this on theory that the state is always solvent and is able
to meet its obligation.
III. E.
Spouses Tiu vs Villar
A.M. No. P-11-2986 June 13,2012
Facts:The trial court granted an order of preliminary attachment against First
Global and Spouses T.Sheriff Villar of RTC Pasay City served copies of the
summons, complaint and the writ of preliminary attachment to Spouses T at
their office at Pasig City but were received by the General Manager and
Caretaker of First Global.Spouses T argued that there was no proper service
of summons upon them.
The General Manager Bauco was competent and of sufficient age to receive
the summons on behalf of Sps T, as the former presented herself as General
Manager and Caretaker.
Facts: Spouses T argued that the Sheriff improperly implemented the writ
since it was executed outside his territorial jurisdiction.
Facts:Spouse T moved for the dismissal based on improper venue which the
court granted. Sheriff Villar did not immediately release the attached property
despite the RTC’s order of release but filed a Sheriff’s Report asking for a
clarification as whether or not he should wait for the trial court ‘s order to ttain
finality before returning the attached properties.
Issue: Is the Sheriff administratively liable for failure to effect the immediate
release of the attached properties despite the RTC’s order of release.
The Sheriff should have followed the order of the court to return the attached
properties but the Sheriff did not show deliberate defiance against the order of
the court but rather consulted the judge before taking action on a matter which
he is not an expert.
Answer:
No. The liability of the sureties was fixed and conditioned on the finality of the
judgment rendered regardless of whether the decision was based on consent
of the parties or on merits. A judgment entered on stipulation is nonetheless a
judgment of the court because consented by the parties.
In order for novation to extinguish its obligation, the surety must be able to
show that there is an incompatibility between the compromise agreement and
the terms of the counterbond.
Facts: R Bank filed a complaint of sum money with prayer for issuance of writ
of preliminary attachment against Sps. S on April 15 1993.An order of
attachment was issued against the properties of the latter on Ma7 1993. The
Sheriff attached a parcel of land which the Sps.S sold to Manila Mission on
MAy 18 1992 but its title was only issued in the name of Respondent (MIssion
Manila) on April 28, 1994. Respondent executed an Affidavit claiming title and
ownership over the subject property, and requested the Ex-Officio Provincial
and City Sheriff to release the said property from attachment. The Sheriff,
however, advised respondent to file a motion directly with the RTC.
Question: Is the Motion to Release Property from Attachment a proper
remedy?
Answer:The filing by respondent of the Motion to Release Property from
Attachment was made on the advice of the Sheriff upon whom respondent
served its Affidavit of Title and Ownership. Respondent should not be faulted
for merely heeding the Sheriffs advice. The filing of the Motion in question can
be deemed as a mere continuation of the third-party claim of respondent, in the
form of its Affidavit of Title and Ownership, served upon the Sheriff, in accord
with the first paragraph of Section 14, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.
Question: Who has better right over the property, the Petitioner or the
Respondent.
Answer: The settled rule is that levy on attachment, duly registered, takes
preference over a prior unregistered sale. This result is a necessary
consequence of the fact that the property involved was duly covered by
the Torrens system which works under the fundamental principle that
registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a
lien upon the land.
Question: Would your answer change if the Petiitoner has prior knowledge of
the sale before the attachment of the Property?
Answer:
Facts:
Properties of a Corporation was attached in a case that was later dismissed,
for lack of jurisdiction of the court since the jurisdiction lies with the SEC being
an intra-corporate matter. The stockholder respondents claim for damages for
wrongful attachment of the property against the Petitioner
Answer: No. The personality of a corporation is distinct and separate from the
personalities of its stockholders. Hence, its stockholders are not themselves
the real parties in interest to claim and recover compensation for the damages
arising from the wrongful attachment of its assets. Only the corporation is the
real party in interest for that purpose.
II. N.
Equitable Banking Corporation v. Special Steel Products, Inc., G.R. No.
175350,13 June 2012
Answer:
For such wrongful preliminary attachment, plaintiffs may be held liable for
damages. However, Petitioner is entitled only to such damages as its evidence
would allow, for the wrongfulness of an attachment does not automatically
warrant the award of damages. The debtor still has the burden of proving the
nature and extent of the injury that it suffered by reason of the wrongful
attachment.
The Court has gone over the records and found that Equitable has duly proved
its claim for, and is entitled to recover, actual damages. In order to lift the
wrongful attachment of Equitables properties, the bank was compelled to pay
the total amount of P30,204.26 in premiums for a counter-bond.However,
Equitable failed to prove that it sustained damage to its goodwill and business
credit in consequence of the alleged wrongful attachment. There was no proof
of Equitables contention that respondents actions caused it public
embarrassment and a bank run.