SIEVERT VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
168 SCRA 692
FACTS:
- Sievert was a citizen and resident of the Philippines. He
received by mail a Petition for issance of a Preliminary !rit of
Attachment filed with the "TC.
- Sievert had not properly received any smmons and a copy of
the complaint a#ainst him.
- $n the date of trial% Sievert&s consel entered an appearance
for the limited prpose of ob'ectin# to the 'risdiction of the
cort. They prayed for the denial of the petition on the #rond
that the cort had not ac(ired 'risdiction over the person of
Sievert.
- TC: denied the ob'ection of Sievert.
- CA: affirmed the TC
)SS*+:
- !$, a cort which has not ac(ired 'risdiction over the
person of the defendant in the main case% may bind sch
defendant or his property by issin# a writ of preliminary
attachment.
H+-.:
- ,$.
"AT)$:
- The isse posed in this case is not to be resolved by
determinin# when an action may be re#arded as havin# been
commenced. The critical time% which mst be identified% rather%
is when the trial cort ac(ires athority nder the law to act
coercively a#ainst the defendant or his property.
- The SC holds% therefore% that the critical time is the time of the
vestin# of 'risdiction of the cort over the person of the
defendant in the main case.
- Attachment is an ancillary remedy. )t is not so#ht for its own
sa/e bt rather to enable the attachin# party to realize pon
relief so#ht and e0pected to be #ranted in the main or
principal action. A cort% which has not ac(ired 'risdiction
over the person of the defendant% cannot bind the defendant
whether in the main case or in the any ancillary proceedin#
sch as attachment proceedin#s.
- The service of a petition for preliminary attachment withot the
prior or simltaneos service of smmons and a copy of the
complaint in the main case% does not confer 'risdiction pon
the issin# cort over the person of the defendant.