G.R. No.

171124, February 13, 2008

ALEJANDRO NG WEE v. MANUEL TANKIANSEE

NACHURA, J:
FACTS:
Petitioner Alejandro Ng Wee was a client of Westmont Bank, when he placed an
investment to the latters affiliate Wincorp. Wincorp used such investment to enter into a
power merge and extended a loan to its client Hottlick but the latter defaulted in
payment. Upon Ng Wees discovery of the actions of Westmont Bank and the officers of
Wincorp and feeling aggrieved, he instituted a civil action for damages with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila. On the basis of such complaint, the Trial Court issued a writ of
preliminary attachment against the properties of the defendants.
Defendants filed a motion to discharge such writ arguing that it was improper and
the bond furnished was insufficient. The RTC denied the motion to discharge. The
former filed a petition for certiorari on the same court but was likewise denied. After the
denial of a motion for reconsideration, the defendants moved to the Court of Appeals to
file petition for certiorari and the CA reversed the RTCs decision causing the lifting of
the preliminary attachment. Thus. this instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in lifting the preliminary attachment on
the properties of the defendants?
HELD:
NO. According to the Supreme Court, Ng Wee was not successful in proving that
the power merge entered into by the defendants are guided with fraud. The petitioner
based his application for the issuance of preliminary attachment in Rule 57 Sec 1 (d)
which reads:
Sec 1. (d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of fraud in
contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is
brought, or in the performance thereof.,

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. Fraud is a state of mind and need not be
proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the circumstances attendant in each
case.