Onate vs.

Abrogar

Facts:
Sun Life filed a complaint for a sum of money with a prayer for the immediate issuance of a writ of
attachment against petitioners Onate and Dino. Respondent Judge granted the prayer and the writ was
correspondingly issued. After the summons were eventually served upon petitioners, the latter filed
motions to discharge/dissolve the attachment. Meanwhile, Sun Life filed motions for examination of
petitioners bank accounts. Respondent judge ruled in all the motions in favor of Sun Life. Petitioners
moved for reconsideration but were denied.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge erred in allowing the examination of the bank accounts of herein
petitioners.

Held:
Yes

Ruling:
The statement in question has been taken out of context. The full statement reads: It is clear from our
pronouncements that a writ of preliminary attachment may issue even before summons is served upon
the defendant. However, we have likewise ruled that the writ cannot bind and affect the defendant until
jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained. Therefore, it is required that when the proper officer
commences implementation of the writ of attachment, service of summons should be simultaneously
made.

The attachment of properties before the service of summons on the defendant is invalid, even though the
court later acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. At the very least, then, the writ of attachment must
be served simultaneously with the service of summons before the writ may be enforced. As the
properties of the petitioners were attached by the sheriff before he had served the summons on them, the
levies made must be considered void.