MINDANAO SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC ( formerly Davao Savings

and Loan Association ) & FRANCISCO VILLAMOR vs CA , Poly Mercado and

Juan MERCADO 172 scra 480

Ponente: Grino-Aquino, J.:

Facts: Private respondents filed in the RTC of Davao a complaint against defendants
D.S. Homes and its directors for Rescission of contract and damages with a prayer for
the issuance of writ of preliminary attachment. The court issued an order granting ex
parte the application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Petitioners herein filed
motions to quash the writ but it was denied by the court. D.S. Homes et.al therefore
offered a counterbond of P1,752,861.41 per certificate issued by Land Bank of the
Philippines which the trial court accepted. Thus, the writ was lifted. Petitioners then filed
in the CA a petition for certiorari to annul the order of attachment and the denial of
their motion to quash the same. CA dismissed it and remanded the records in RTC for
expeditious proceedings. CA held that objections against the writ may no longer be
invoked once a counterbond is filed for its lifting or dissolution. Hence, a petition for
review was filed in SC which denied it finding no reversible error in CAs decision.

Issue: WON a motion to discharge an attachment writ is proper once a counterbond

has been filed.

Ruling: The CA did not err in holding that objections to the impropriety or irregularity
of the writ of attachment may no longer be invoked once a counterbond is filed when
the ground for the issuance of the writ forms the core of the complaint.

Indeed, after the defendant has obtained the discharge of the writ by filing a
counterbond under Sec12 Rule 57 he may not file another motion under Sec13, Rule 57
to quash the writ for impropriety or irregularity in issuing it.

The reason is simple. The writ had already been quashed by filing a counterbond
hence another motion would be pointless. As the CA correctly observed, the question as
to whether the plaintiff was entitled to the writ can only be determined after, not
before, a full-blown trial on the merits of the case. The merits of a main action are not
triable in a motion to discharge an attachment otherwise an applicant for the dissolution
could force a trial on the merits of the case on his motion. The liability of the surety on
the counterbond subsists until the Court shall have finally absolved the defendant from
the plaintiffs claim. Only then may the counterbond be released. The same rule applies
to plaintiffs attachment bond.