RULES 57

Case #: 1
By: Matias, Michelle
Lim Jr. vs Lazaro
G.R. 185734 July 3, 2013

DOCTRINE:

Remedial Law. Provisional Remedies. Attachment; Preliminary Attachment; By its nature,

preliminary attachment under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, 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.

FACTS:

Petitioner Lim Jr filed a complaint for a sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment against the respondent Spouses Lazaro. The RTC granted the writ of preliminary
attachment application and upon the posting of the required bond issued the corresponding writ on
October 14, 2005. 3 parcels of land owned by the respondent spouses were levied upon.

The parties later entered into a Compromise Agreement whereby Sps. Lazaro agreed to pay Lim, Jr. the
amount of P2,351,064.80 on an installment basis, following a schedule of payments covering the period
from September 2006 until October 2013. The RTC rendered a decision on the basis of the compromise.
Sps. Lazaro then filed an Omnibus Motion, seeking to lift the writ of preliminary attachment annotated on
the subject TCTs.

In granting the Motion, the RTC ruled that a writ of preliminary attachment is a mere provisional or
ancillary remedy, resorted to by a litigant to protect and preserve certain rights and interests pending final
judgment. Considering that the case had already been considered closed and terminated by the rendition
of the decision based on the compromise agreement, the writ of preliminary attachment should be lifted
and quashed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment was properly lifted.

HELD:

NO. The discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment against the properties of Sps. Lazaro was
improper.

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 addition, attachment is also availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over the action by
actual or constructive seizure of the property in those instances where personal or substituted service of
summons on the defendant cannot be effected.

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.
Case #: 2
By: Mejica, John Paolo
Ligon vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati
G.R. No. 190028. February 26, 2014

DOCTRINE:

Civil Procedure. Preliminary Attachment. - Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the
property of an adverse party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at
any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the
plaintiff or any proper party. Case law instructs that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is
against the particular property, enforceable against the whole world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor
acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very
dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property attached
is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owner’s debt. The lien continues until the
debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or
the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law. Thus, a prior registration of an
attachment lien creates a preference, such that when an attachment has been duly levied upon a
property, a purchaser thereof subsequent to the attachment takes the property subject to the said
attachment. As provided under PD 1529, said registration operates as a form of constructive notice to all
persons.

FACTS:

On November 20, 2002, petitioner Leticia P. Ligon (Ligon) filed an amended complaint before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101 (Quezon City RTC) for collection of sum of money and
damages, rescission of contract, and nullification of title with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-10-48145 (Quezon City Case), against Sps.
Baladjay, a certain Olivia Marasigan (Marasigan), Polished Arrow Holdings, Inc. (Polished Arrow), and its
incorporators.

In her complaint, Ligon alleged that Rosario Baladjay (Rosario) enticed her to extend a short-term loan in
the amount of P3,000,000.00, payable in a month’s time and secured by an Allied Bank post-dated check
for the same amount. Ligon likewise claimed that Rosario, as further enticement for the loan extension,
represented that she and her husband Saturnino were in the process of selling their property in Ayala
Alabang Villageand the proceeds of the said sale could easily pay-off the loan. Thus, Ligon prayed
transfer be nullified, and that a writ of preliminary attachment be issued in the interim against defendants’
assets, including the subject property.

On February 18, 2003, a similar complaint for collection of sum of money, damages, and cancellation of
title with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment was lodged before the Makati City RTC,
docketed as Civil Case No. 03-186 (Makati City Case), by Spouses Cecilia and Gil Vicente (Sps. Vicente)
against Sps. Baladjay, Polished Arrow, and other corporations.

Meanwhile, in the pending Quezon City Case, Polished Arrow and the individual defendants (with the
exception of Marasigan) were successively dropped as party-defendants, after it was established that
they, by themselves directly or through other persons, had no more ownership, interest, title, or claim over
the subject property.

In view of the foregoing, the Quezon City Case proceeded only against Sps. Baladjay and Marasigan
and, after due proceedings, the Quezon City RTC rendered a Decision dated March 26, 2008.
On September 25, 2008, the March 26, 2008 Decision of the Quezon City RTC became final and
executory. However, when Ligon sought its execution, she discovered that the December 3, 2002
attachment annotation had been deleted from TCT No. 9273 when the subject property was sold by way
of public auction on September 9, 2005 to the highest bidder, respondent Ting, for the amount of
P9,000,000.00 during the execution proceedings in the Makati City Case.
Ligon filed a certiorari petition against respondent Presiding Judge Reynaldo Laigo (Judge Laigo), Sheriff
Alejo, Atty. Garing, Ting, and Techico (respondents), alleging, among others, that the Makati City RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its dicretion in disregarding Ligon’s prior attachment lien over the
subject property?

HELD:

Yes. Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken
into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. Case law instructs
that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against the particular property, enforceable
against the whole world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached
property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy
itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property attached is an indebted thing and a virtual
condemnation of it to pay the owner’s debt. The lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under
execution issued on the judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or
vacated in some manner provided by law. Thus, a prior registration of an attachment lien creates a
preference, such that when an attachment has been duly levied upon a property, a purchaser thereof
subsequent to the attachment takes the property subject to the said attachment. As provided under PD
1529, said registration operates as a form of constructive notice to all persons.

In this case, Ligon, in order to secure the satisfaction of a favorable judgment in the Quezon City Case,
applied for and was eventually able to secure a writ of preliminary attachment over the subject property
on November 25, 2002, which was later annotated on the dorsal portion of TCT No. 9273 in the name of
Polished Arrow on December 3, 2002. Notwithstanding the subsequent cancellation of TCT No. 9273 due
to the Makati City RTC’s December 9, 2004 Decision rescinding the transfer of the subject property from
Sps. Baladjay to Polished Arrow upon a finding that the same was made in fraud of creditors, Ligon’s
attachment lien over the subject property continued to subsist since the attachment she had earlier
secured binds the property itself, and, hence, continues until the judgment debt of Sps. Baladjay to Ligon
as adjudged in the Quezon City Case is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some
manner provided by law. The grave abuse of discretion of the Makati City RTC lies with its directive to
issue a new certificate of title in the name of Ting (i.e., TCT No. 19756), free from any liens and
encumbrances. This course of action clearly negates the efficacy of Ligon’s attachment lien and, also,
defies the legal characterization of attachment proceedings. It bears noting that Ligon’s claim, secured by
the aforesaid attachment, is against Sps. Baladjay whose ownership over the subject property had been
effectively restored in view of the RTC’s rescission of the property’s previous sale to Polished Arrow.
Thus, Sps. Ligon’s attachment lien against Sps. Baladjay as well as their successors-in-interest should
have been preserved, and the annotation thereof carried over to any subsequent certificate of title, the
most recent of which as it appears on record is TCT No. 31001 in the name of Techico, without prejudice
to the latter’s right to protect his own ownership interest over the subject property.

Case #: 3
By: Siddayao, Janus
SOFIA TORRES, FRUCTOSA TORRES, HEIRS OF MARIO TORRES and SOLAR RESOURCES, INC.,
vs. NICANOR SATSATIN, EMILINDA AUSTRIA SATSATIN, NIKKI NORMEL SATSATIN and NIKKI
NORLIN SATSATIN

DOCTRINE:

Remedial Law; Attachment; Definition of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment.- A writ of preliminary

attachment is defined as a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where an action is pending
to be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant therein, the same to be held thereafter by
the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment that might be secured in the said action by
the attaching creditor against the defendant.

Same; Same; In provisional remedies; particularly that of preliminary attachment, the distinction
between the issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment is of utmost importance to the validity
of the writ.-- in provisional remedies, particularly that of preliminary attachment, the distinction between
the issuance and the implementation of the writ of attachment is of utmost importance to the validity of the
writ. The distinction is indispensably necessary to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant should be acquired in order to validly implement the writ of attachment upon his person.

Same; Same; Three stages involved in the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment; For the initial
two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained.-- In
Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment
involves three stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application; second, the writ of
attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. 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.

Same; Same; The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service of
summons on the defendant whether by personal service, substituted service or by publication as
warranted by the circumstances of the case; Subsequent service of summons does not confer retroactive
acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated
service.-- assuming arguendo that the writ of attachment was validly issued, although the trial court later
acquired jurisdiction over the respondents by service of the summons upon them, such belated service of
summons on respondents cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ.
The trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process on respondents without first obtaining jurisdiction
over their person. The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the
service of summons on the defendant whether by personal service, substituted service or by publication
as warranted by the circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of summons does not confer a
retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a
belated service.

FACTS:

Siblings Torres (petitioners) each owned adjacent 20,000 square meters track of land in Dasmariñas,
Cavite. Nicanor Satsatin, through petitioners’ mother Agripina Aledia, was able to convince the siblings to
sell their property and authorize him via SPA, to negotiate for its sale. Nicanor offered to sell the
properties to Solar Resources, to which Solar allegedly agreed to buy the three parcels of land plus the
property of one Rustica Aledia for P35, 000,000. Petitioners claimed that Solar has already paid the entire
purchase price, however Nicanor only remitted P9, 000,000 out of the P28, 000,000 sum they are entitled
to and that Nicanor had acquired a house and lot and a car (which he registered in the names of his
children). Despite the repeated verbal and written demands, Nicanor failed to remit the balance prompting
the petitioners to file a complaint for sum of money against the family Satsatin.

Petitioners filed an Ex Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Attachment, alleging among other things,
that respondent was about to depart the country and that they are willing to post a bond fixed by court.
After filing a Motion for Deputation of Sheriff, which the RTC granted, it issued a Writ of Attachment
(WOA) on November 15. On November 19, after serving a copy of the WOA upon the Satsatins, the
sheriff levied their real and personal properties. On November 21, the summons and copy of complaint
was served upon the respondents. Respondents filed their answer and a Motion to Discharge Writ of
Attachment, claiming, among others, that: the bond was issued before the issuance of WOA, the WOA
was issued before the summons was received. Respondents posted a counter-bond for the lifting of
WOA, which was denied along with MR. Aggrieved, they filed with CA a Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus
and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and TRO under Rule 65. CA ruled in favor of respondents and
denied petitioners’ MR hence the petition for review on certiorari with the SC.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in finding that RTC was guilty of grave abuse of discretion in the issuance and
implementation of the Writ of Attachment?

HELD:

NO. A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court
where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant therein, the
same to be held thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment that might
be secured in the said action by the attaching creditor against the defendant.

In the case at bar, the CA correctly found that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or
in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in approving the bond posted by petitioners despite
the fact that not all the requisites for its approval were complied with. In accepting a surety bond, it is
necessary that all the requisites for its approval are met; otherwise, the bond should be rejected.

Moreover, in provisional remedies, particularly that of preliminary attachment, the distinction between the
issuance and the implementation of the writ of attachment is of utmost importance to the validity of the
writ. The distinction is indispensably necessary to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant should be acquired in order to validly implement the writ of attachment upon his person.

In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment
involves three stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application; second, the writ of
attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. 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.
At the time the trial court issued the writ of attachment on November 15, 2002, it can validly to do so since
the motion for its issuance can be filed “at the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of
judgment.” However, at the time the writ was implemented, the trial court has not acquired jurisdiction
over the persons of the respondent since no summons was yet served upon them. The proper officer
should have previously or simultaneously with the implementation of the writ of attachment, served a copy
of the summons upon the respondents in order for the trial court to have acquired jurisdiction upon them
and for the writ to have binding effect. Consequently, even if the writ of attachment was validly issued, it
was improperly or irregularly enforced and, therefore, cannot bind and affect the respondents.

Moreover, again assuming arguendo that the writ of attachment was validly issued, although the trial
court later acquired jurisdiction over the respondents by service of the summons upon them, such
belated service of summons on respondents cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in
the enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process on
respondents without first obtaining jurisdiction over their person. The preliminary writ of
attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service of summons on the defendant
whether by personal service, substituted service or by publication as warranted by the
circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive
acquisition of jurisdiction
Case #: 4
By: Pacheco, Ace
Mangila vs. CA
GR. no. 125027 Aug. 12, 2002

DOCTRINE:

Civil Procedure, Manner of Attachment. Rule 57, Sec 5: The sheriff enforcing the writ shall without
delay and with all reasonable diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, only so
much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's demand, unless the former makes a deposit with
the court from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an amount
equal to the bond fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the value of the property to be
attached, exclusive of costs. No levy on attachment pursuant to the writ issued under section 2 hereof
shall be enforced unless it is preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons,
together with a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment the applicant's affidavit and bond,
and the order and writ of attachment, on the defendant within the Philippines.

The requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply where the summons
could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the defendant is a
resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom, or the defendant is a non-resident of the
Philippines, or the action is one in rem or quasi in rem.

FACTS

The respondent in the case filed a collection suit for the payment of shipping charges which was allegedly
not paid for by Mangila despite several demands by the respondent.

The sheriff of the court was not able to personally serve the summons to Mangila. A woman found at
Mangila’s house informed the sheriff that she had already transferred her residence to Sto. Nio, Guagua,
Pampanga. The sheriff found out further that Mangila had left the Philippines for Guam.

In construing petitioners departure from the Philippines as done with intent to defraud her creditors,
private respondent filed a Motion for Preliminary Attachment. The trial court issued the said Order of
Preliminary Attachment against Mangila. The following day, the trial court issued a Writ of Preliminary
Attachment.

Mangila filed a Motion to Discharge Attachment without submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the trial
court. She pointed out that up to the time of motion, she had not been served a copy of the Complaint and
the summons. therefore Mangila claimed the court had not acquired jurisdiction over her person.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Writ of Attachment was improperly issued and served despite there being an alias
summons.

HELD

The court ruled that the Writ of Attachment was improperly issued and served and that the alias summons
on the Mangila cannot have cured the defect.

A writ of attachment cannot bind and affect the defendant 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 not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the
writ is implemented, 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.

In the instant case, the Writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued on September 27, 1988 and
implemented on October 28, 1988. However, the alias summons was served only on January 26, 1989 or
almost three months after the implementation of the writ of attachment.
Case #: 5
By: Pion, Pao
Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 139941 | January 19, 2001

DOCTRINE:

Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Attachment; The determination of the existence of grounds to
discharge a writ of attachment rests in the sound discretion of the lower courts.—The Rules of Court
specifically provide for the remedies of a defendant whose property or asset has been attached. As has
been consistently ruled by this Court, the determination of the existence of grounds to discharge a writ of
attachment rests in the sound discretion of the lower courts.

Same; Same; Same; Two courses of action to quash attachment.— The question in this case is: What
can the herein petitioner do to quash the attachment of the L/C? There are two courses of action
available to the petitioner: First. To file a counterbond in accordance with Rule 57, Section
12, Second. To quash the attachment on the ground that it was irregularly or improvidently issued, as
provided for in Section 13 of the same Rule.

Same; Same; Same; The rule contemplates that the defect must be in the very issuance of the
attachment writ.—It is clear that these grounds have nothing to do with the issuance of the writ of
attachment. Much less do they attack the issuance of the writ at that time as improper or irregular. And
yet, the rule contemplates that the defect must be in the very issuance of the attachment writ. For
instance, the attachment may be discharged under Section 13 of Rule 57 when it is proven that the
allegations of the complaint were deceptively framed, or when the complaint fails to state a cause of
action. Supervening events which may or may not justify the discharge of the writ are not within the
purview of this particular rule.

Same; Same; Same; The merits of the action in which a writ of preliminary attachment has been issued
are not triable on a motion for dissolution of the attachment.—Thus, this Court has time and again ruled
that the merits of the action in which a writ of preliminary attachment has been issued are not triable on a
motion for dissolution of the attachment, otherwise an applicant for the lifting of the writ could force a trial
of the merits of the case on a mere motion.

Same; Same; Same; When the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same time the
applicant’s cause of action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or dissolved is by a counterbond.—
More-over, we have held that when the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same
time the applicant’s cause of action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or dissolved is by a
counterbond, in accordance with Section 12 of the same rule. This recourse, however, was not availed of
by petitioner, as noted by the Solicitor General in his comment.

FACTS:

Chuidian, allegedly a puppet of the Marcoses, was able to obtain a loan guarantee from Philguarantee,
BOI, the Central Bank in favor of Asian Reliability Co., Inc. (ARCI). 98% of the latter is owned by
Chuidian. It was granted a loan guarantee of USD 25 Million for the establishment of 5 interrelated
projects in the country. It is but the same investment company that exists in the United States. ARCI then
urges Philguarantee to undertake payments of the same. However, Philguarantee filed a case against
petitioner through the California Court for violating the terms of the loan – for defaulting in payments and
misuse of the money. Chuidian suddenly claims that the plunderer also had him victimized. Hence, the
parties compromised ordering Chuidian to surrender his titles of ownership of companies in favor of the
Philippine government.
In exchange for that, Chuidian’s civil liability and criminal liability will be extinguished in relation to
Philguarantee’s loan. The Philippine government will pay Chuidian USD 5.3 Million in installments of USD
4.6M and the rest of the balance with USD100,000 monthly until paid.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment should be lifted as a result of petitioner’s return to the
country and his averments that there was no fraud in the meeting of the obligation

HELD:

No.
Preliminary attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same time of the action. Therefore, the
defendant is allowed to file a motion to dissolve the attachment under Sec. 13 of Rule 57 by offering to
show the falsity of the factual averments in the plaintiff’s application and affidavits on which the writ was
based on.
Case #: 6
By: Ragragio, Rosy June
Luzon Developmental Bank vs. Krishnan
G.R. No. 203530, April 13, 2015

DOCTRINE

In construing words and phrases used in a statute, the general rule is that, in the absence of legislative
intent to the contrary, they should be given their plain, ordinary and common usage meaning which is
supported by the maxim generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda or what is generally spoken shall be
generally understood.

FACTS

Respondent Erlinda filed a claim for collection of sum of money and damages as a client of Luzon that
she is a client of respondent bank wherein she maintained several accounts including time deposits. On
several occasions, when respondent Erlinda presented her Time Deposits Certificates amounting to
P28,597,472.70 for payment because they have become due, petitioners refused to honor them for the
reason that they were fraudulent. Respondent Erlinda likewise applied for a Preliminary Writ of
Attachment wherein the RTC granted it. By virtue of the writ, petitioner bank’s accounts in BPI Family
Bank, Calamba, Laguna in the amount of P28,597,472.70 and its account amounting to P49,000,000.00
in the Central Bank were garnished. Then the petitioners filed an urgent ex-parte Motion to Recall Quash
and/or Lift Attachment or Garnishment (in excess of amounts in the writ). Respondent Erlinda opposed
the motion. So petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the substitution of their garnished account
with government securities and the immediate resolution of their motion to discharge attachment and
setting the motion for hearing. Erlinda opposed again. The RTC required petitioners to justify their motion
to discharge the attachment. The RTC granted Erlinda’s Motion for Inhibition. Erlinda then applied for
petition for certiorari at the CA. Moreover,petitioner argued at the CA that that Section 2 of Rule 57 only
mentions the term "deposit," thus, it cannot only be confined or construed to refer to cash.

ISSUE:

Whether or not whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s decision which denied petitioners’ motion
praying that bank property be deposited in lieu of cash or a counter-bond.

HELD:

The Court cited that Section 2, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that "an order of attachment
may be issued either ex parte or upon motion with notice and hearing by the court in which the action is
pending, or by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and must require the sheriff of the court to
attach so much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom it is issued, not exempt from
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless such party makes deposit or
gives a bond as hereinafter provided in an amount equal to that fixed in the order, which may be the
amount sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand or the value of the property to be attached as stated
by the applicant, exclusive of costs."

Section 5 of the same Rule likewise states that "the sheriff enforcing the writ shall without delay and with
all reasonable diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, only so much of the
property in the Philippines of the party against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from execution, as
may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless the former makes a deposit with the court from
which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an amount equal to the
bond fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the value of the property to be attached, exclusive
of costs." Hence, it is evidently clear that once the writ of attachment has been issued, the only remedy
of the petitioners in lifting the same is through a cash deposit or the filing of the counter-bond.
Furthermore, petitioners should not give a special or technical interpretation to a word which is otherwise
construed in its ordinary sense by the law and broaden the signification of the term "deposit" to include
that of real properties.
Case #: 7
By: Rigor, Karla Michaela
Northern Luzon Island Co v Garcia
GR No. 203240, March 18, 2015

DOCTRINE:

Civil Procedure. Provisional Remedies. Attachment.- The nature of a preliminary attachment,

definitely ruled that the attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate action independent of the
principal action because the attachment was only an incident of such action.

FACTS:

Petitioner Northern Island Co., Inc. filed a complaint with application for a writ of preliminary attachment,
before the RTC against Spouses Denis and Cherylin Garcia. It was alleged that Northern Island Co., Inc.
delivered to Spouses Garcia various appliances amounting to Php 8,040,825.17; the goods were
transported, shipped and delivered by Sulpicio Lines and were accepted in good order and condition by
the Spouses’ representatives; it was agreed that the total amount due was payable within 120 days and
unpaid amounts would earn interest rate of 18% per annum; the Spouses failed to pay despite repeated
demands; and Spouses fraudulently asserted that there was no proof they have received the quantity of
the subject goods. Petitioner posted a bond through Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation to which
the RTC issued the writ sought for.

Instead of answering, Spouses Garcia filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Proper
Pleading and Motion for Discovery. Asking the RTC if they could photocopy the evidence presented to
come up with an intelligent answer. Later, Spouses filed a Motion to Discharge Excess Attachment,
alleging that the RTC exceeded. RTC denied the motion and directed respondents to file their answer.

The CA ruled in the Certiorari Case: a. on the attachment, trial by the commissioners under Rule 32 of the
Rules of Curt was proper so that the parties may finally settle their conflicting valuations; and b. on the
matter of discovery, petitioner could not be compelled to produce the originals sought by the respondents
for inspection since they were not in petitioner’s possession.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the CA erred in ordering the appointment of a commissioner and the subsequent
discharge of any excess attachment found by said commissioner.

HELD:

In a former case, Sps. Olib v. Judge Pastoral 266 Phil 762 (1990), the Court, in view of the nature of a
preliminary attachment, definitely ruled that the attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate
action independent of the principal action because the attachment was only an incident of such action.

“Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party

is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time
thereafter, as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the
plaintiff or any proper party.

It is an auxiliary remedy and cannot have an independent existence apart from the main
suit or claim instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. Being merely ancillary to a
principal proceeding, the attachment must fail if the suit itself cannot be maintained as the
purpose of the writ can no longer be justified.

The consequence is that where the main action is appealed, the attachment which may
have been issued as an incident of that action, is also considered appealed and so also
removed from the jurisdiction of the court a quo. The attachment itself cannot by the
subject of a separate action independent of the principal action because the attachment
was only an incident of such action.”
Case #: 8
By: Rigor, Karla Michaela
Excellent Quality Apparel v Visayan Surety

DOCTRINE
Civil Procedure. Preliminary Attachment. - By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court, "is an ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to
realize upon 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 the pendency of the action which
may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending
rendition and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. In addition, attachment
is also availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or constructive seizure of the
property in those instances where personal or substituted service of summons on the defendant cannot
be effected."

The party applying for the order of attachment must thereafter give a bond executed to the adverse party
in the amount fixed by the court in its order granting the issuance of the writ. The purpose of an
attachment bond is to answer for all costs and damages which the adverse party may sustain by reason
of the attachment if the court finally rules that the applicant is not entitled to the writ.

FACTS

Excellent Quality Apparel Inc, represented by Max L.F. Ying and Alfiero R. Orden, entered into a contract
with Multi-Rich Builders for the construction of a garment factory, the duration was for a maximum of five
months or 150 consecutive calendar case; included in the contract was an Arbitration Clause in case of
dispute. Within the time given, the factory was completed.

Win Multi-Rich Builders, Inc. was incorporated with the Securities and exchange commissions. Win Multi-
Rich filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against petitioner and yin before the RTC, praying
also for the issuance of a writ of attachment, claiming that Ying was about to abscond and that petitioner
had an impending closure. Win Multi-Rich secured the necessary bond from respondent, Visayan Surety
and Insurance. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment in favor of Win Multi-Rich.

To avoid enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment, petitioner issued a check payable to the Clerk
of Court of the RTC and filed its Omnibus Motion seeking to discharge the attachment. Petitioner also
questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC due to the presence of the Arbitration Clause.

The motion was denied by the RTC because the issues could be resolved after a fullblown trial. Petitioner
filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim before the RTC, denying the material allegation of the
complaint and sought the immediate lifting of the writ of attachment, and praying that the bond to support
the application be held to satisfy petitioner’s claim for damages due to the improper issuance of such writ.

RTC issued another order, depositing the garnished funds of the petitioner to the cashier of the Clerk of
Court. Win Multi-Rich filed a motion to release petitioner’s cash deposit, which was granted y the RTC.
Subsequently, Win Multi-Rich posted Surety Bond issued by the respondent Far Eastern Surety and
Insurance co to secure the withdrawal of the cash deposit.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the CA.
Asserting that its cash deposit with the RTC was turned over to Win Multi-Rich. CA issued a decision,
annulling the orders of the RTC and ruled that RTC had jurisdiction.

ISSUE

1. The assailed decision and the assailed resolution of the court of appeals should be reversed and set
aside for being contrary to law and jurisprudence considering that the right to due process of the two
surety companies will not be violated if execution of the judgment against them is allowed.
2. The assailed decision and the assailed resolution of the court of appeals should be reversed and set
aside for being contrary to law and jurisprudence considering that to allow the execution against the two
surety companies would give full effect to the terms of the judgment.

HELD

The petition is partly meritorious.

There was an application for damages; but there was no notice given to Visayan Surety

By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, "is an ancillary remedy applied
for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon 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 the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and
protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a
final judgment in the case.38 In addition, attachment is also availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over
the action by actual or constructive seizure of the property in those instances where personal or
substituted service of summons on the defendant cannot be effected."

The party applying for the order of attachment must thereafter give a bond executed to the adverse party
in the amount fixed by the court in its order granting the issuance of the writ.40 The purpose of an
attachment bond is to answer for all costs and damages which the adverse party may sustain by reason
of the attachment if the court finally rules that the applicant is not entitled to the writ.41redarclaw

In this case, the attachment bond was issued by Visayan Surety in order for Win Multi-Rich to secure the
issuance of the writ of attachment. Hence, any application for damages arising from the improper,
irregular or excessive attachment shall be governed by Section 20, Rule 57, which provides:

Sec. 20. Claim for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment.

An application for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must be filed
before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice
to the attaching party and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and
the amount thereof. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in
the judgment on the main case.

If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the party against whom the attachment was issued,
he must claim damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal by filing an application in the
appellate court, with notice to the party in whose favor the attachment was issued or his surety or
sureties, before the judgment of the appellate court becomes executory. The appellate court may allow
the application to be heard and decided by the trial court.

Nothing herein contained shall prevent the party against whom the attachment was issued from
recovering in the same action the damages awarded to him from any property of the attaching party not
exempt from execution should the bond or deposit given by the latter be insufficient or fail to fully satisfy
the award.

Thus, the current provision of Section 20, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure covers application
for damages against improper attachment, preliminary injunction, receivership, and replevin.43
Consequently, jurisprudence concerning application for damages against preliminary injunction,
receivership and replevin bonds can be equally applied in the present case.

In a catena of cases,44 the Court has cited the requisites under Section 20, Rule 57 in order to claim
damages against the bond, as follows: The application for damages must be filed in the same case where
the bond was issued; Such application for damages must be filed before the entry of judgment; and After
hearing with notice to the surety.

The first and second requisites, as stated above, relate to the application for damages against the bond.
An application for damages must be filed in the same case where the bond was issued, either (a) before
the trial or (b) before the appeal is perfected or (c) before the judgment becomes executory. The usual
procedure is to file an application for damages with due notice to the other party and his sureties. The
other method would be to incorporate the application in the answer with compulsory counterclaim.

The purpose of requiring the application for damages to be filed in the same proceeding is to avoid the
multiplicity of suit and forum shopping. It is also required to file the application against the bond before the
finality of the decision to prevent the alteration of the immutable judgment.

The next requisite that must be satisfied by petitioner to hold Visayan Surety liable would be that the
judgment against the wrongful attachment was promulgated after the hearing with notice to the surety.
Certainly, the surety must be given prior notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to the
application for damages before the finality of the judgment. The Court rules that petitioner did not satisfy
this crucial element.

Section 20, Rule 57 specifically requires that the application for damages against the wrongful
attachment, whether filed before the trial court or appellate court, must be with due notice to the attaching
party and his surety or sureties. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be
included in the judgment on the main case.

Due notice to the adverse party and its surety setting forth the facts supporting the applicant's right to
damages and the amount thereof under the bond is indispensable. The surety should be given an
opportunity to be heard as to the reality or reasonableness of the damages resulting from the wrongful
issuance of the writ. In the absence of due notice to the surety, therefore, no judgment for damages may
be entered and executed against it.

Clearly, petitioner failed to comply with the requisites under Section 20, Rule 57 because Visayan Surety
was not given due notice on the application for damages before the finality of judgment. The subsequent
motion for execution, which sought to implicate Visayan Surety, cannot alter the immutable judgment
anymore.

FESICO's bond is not covered by Section 20, Rule 57

While Visayan Surety could not be held liable under Section 20, Rule 57, the same cannot be said of
FESICO. In the case at bench, to forestall the enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment, petitioner
issued Equitable PCI Bank Check No. 160149, dated February 16, 2004, in the amount of P8,634,448.20
payable to the Clerk of Court of the RTC. Pursuant to the RTC Order, dated April 29, 2004, the garnished
funds of petitioner were deposited to the cashier of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. The procedure to
discharge the writ of preliminary attachment is stated in Section 12, Rule 57.

The surety bond of FESICO is not covered by any of the provisions in Rule 57 of the Rules of Court
because, in the first place, Win Multi-Rich should not have filed its motion to release the cash deposit of
petitioner and the RTC should not have granted the same. The release of the cash deposit to the
attaching party is anathema to the basic tenets of a preliminary attachment.

The chief purpose of the remedy of attachment is to secure a contingent lien on defendant's property until
plaintiff can, by appropriate proceedings, obtain a judgment and have such property applied to its
satisfaction, or to make some provision for unsecured debts in cases where the means of satisfaction
thereof are liable to be removed beyond the jurisdiction, or improperly disposed of or concealed, or
otherwise placed beyond the reach of creditors. The garnished funds or attached properties could only be
released to the attaching party after a judgment in his favor is obtained. Under no circumstance,
whatsoever, can the garnished funds or attached properties, under the custody of the sheriff or the clerk
of court, be released to the attaching party before the promulgation of judgment.

The question remains, in contrast to Section 20, why does Section 17 sanction the notice and hearing to
the surety after the finality of judgment? The answer lies in the kind of damages sought to be enforced
against the bond.

Under Section 20, Rule 57, in relation to Section 4 therein, the surety bond shall answer for all the costs
which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he may sustain by reason of the
attachment. In other words, the damages sought to be enforced against the surety bond are unliquidated.
Necessarily, a notice and hearing before the finality of judgment must be undertaken to properly
determine the amount of damages that was suffered by the defendant due to the improper attachment.
These damages to be imposed against the attaching party and his sureties are different from the principal
case, and must be included in the judgment.

On the other hand, under Section 17, Rule 57, in relation to Section 12 therein, the cash deposit or the
counter-bond shall secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the
action. Stated differently, the damages sought to be charged against the surety bond are liquidated. The
final judgment had already determined the amount to be awarded to the winning litigant on the main
action. Thus, there is nothing left to do but to execute the judgment against the losing party, or in case of
insufficiency, against its sureties.
Case #: 9
By: Villamor, Wilbert
Watercraft Venture Corp v Wolfe

DOCTRINE:

The sufficiency or insufficiency of an affidavit depends upon the amount of credit given it by the judge,
and its acceptance or rejection, upon his sound discretion

FACTS:

Petitioner Watercraft Venture Corporation (Watercraft) is engaged in the business of building, repairing,
storing and maintaining yachts, boats and other pleasure crafts at the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Subic,
Zambales Watercraft hired respondent Alfred Raymond Wolfe (Wolfe), a British national and resident of
Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Zambales, as its Shipyard Manager.
During his empolyment, Wolfe stored the sailboat, Knotty Gull, within Watercraft1 s boat storage facilities,
but never paid for the storage fees.
On March 7, 2002, Watercraft terminated the employment of Wolfe.
Sometime in June 2002, Wolfe pulled out his sailboat from Watercraft's storage facilities after signing a
Boat Pull-Out Clearance dated June 29, 2002 where he allegedly acknowledged the outstanding
obligation of Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-Four and 82/100 US Dollars (US$16,324.82)
representing unpaid boat storage fees Despite repeated demands, he failed to pay the said amount.
Watercraft filed against Wolfe a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money with Damages with an
Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. Meanwhile, finding Watercraft's ex-
parte application for writ of preliminary attachment sufficient in form and in substance pursuant to Section
1 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, the RTC granted the same. The CA ruled that the act of issuing the
writ of preliminary attachment ex-parte constitutes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC

ISSUE:

Whether the ex-parte issuance of the preliminary attachment by the trial court in favor of the petitioner is
valid.

HELD

NO. For the issuance of an ex-parte issuance of the preliminary attachment to be valid, an affidavit of
merit and an applicant's bond must be filed with the court in which the action is pending. Such bond
executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court is subject to the conditions that the
applicant will pay: (1) all costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party; and (2) all damages which
such party may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant
was not entitled thereto. As to the requisite affidavit of merit, Section 3, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court
states that an order of attachment shall be granted only when it appears in the affidavit of the applicant, or
of some other person who personally knows the facts:
that a sufficient cause of action exists; that the case is one of those mentioned in Section 1 hereof that
there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action; and that the amount
due to the applicant, or the value of the property the possession of which he is entitled to recover, is as
much as the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims. The mere filing of an
affidavit reciting the facts required by Section 3, Rule 57, however, is not enough to compel the judge to
grant the writ of preliminary attachment. Whether or not the affidavit sufficiently established facts therein
stated is a question to be determined by the court in the exercise of its discretion.
Case #: 10
By: Zaragoza, Renee Mae
PHIL AIRCONDITIONING CENTER V. RCJ LINES
G.R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015

DOCTRINE

Writ of Preliminary Attachment. - A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy issued by the
court where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant. The
property is held by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment that might be secured
by the attaching party against the defendant.

FACTS:

petitioner Phil-Air sold to respondent RCJ Lines four Carrier Paris 240 air-conditioning units for buses
(units). The units included compressors, condensers, evaporators, switches, wiring, circuit boards,
brackets, and fittings. The total purchases amounted to P1,240,000.00.5RCJ Lines paid P400,000.00,
leaving a balance of P840,000.00. RCJ Lines accepted the delivery of the units, which Phil-Air then
installed after they were inspected by RCJ Lines president Rolando Abadilla, Sr. Phil-Air allegedly
performed regular maintenance checks on the units pursuant to the one-year warranty on parts and labor.
After some months from installation, Phil-Air supposedly boosted the capacity of the units by upgrading
them to the Carrier Paris 280 model.8 It also purportedly repaired the control switch panel of one of the
units for an additional cost of P60,000.00.

All the post-dated checks were dishonored when Phil-Air subsequently presented them for payment. A
check was returned because it was drawn against insufficient funds, while 2 checks were returned
because the payment was stopped. Before presenting the third check for payment, Phil-Air sent a
demand letter to Rolando Abadilla, Sr. On July 17, 1996, Phil-Air demanded payment from Rolando
Abadilla, Jr., for the total amount of P734,994.00 plus interest, and attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of
the amount due. Phil-Air warned that it would take court action if payment is not made within five days
from demand. In view of the failure of RCJ Lines to pay the balance despite demand, Phil-Air filed a
complaint for sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.

In its answer with compulsory counterclaim, RCJ Lines admitted that it purchased the units in the total
amount of PI,240,000.00 and that it had only paid P400,000.00. It refused to pay the balance because
PhilAir allegedly breached its warranty. The RTC granted the application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment after Phil-Air posted an attachment bond in the amount of P1,656,000.00.20 Two
buses of RCJ Lines were attached pursuant to the writ. The writ was executed on April 21, 1999.22 The
attachment, however, was later lifted when the RTC granted RCJ Lines' urgent motion to discharge the
writ of attachment. RCJ Lines posted a counter-bond in the same amount as the attachment bond. Ruling
on the merits after trial, the RTC found that Phil-Air was guilty of laches and estopped from pursuing its
claim. It also sustained the allegation that Phil-Air had breached its warranty. The CA affirmed the
decision in toto.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Phil-Air is directly liable for the counter-bond premium and RCJ lines’ alleged unrealized
profit and Whether or not RCJ Lines proved its alleged unrealized profits arising from the enforcement of
the preliminary writ of attachment.

HELD:

The CA and the RTC erred when it held Phil-Air directly liable for the counter-bond premium and RCJ
Lines' alleged unrealized profits. Granting that RCJ Lines suffered losses, the judgment award should
have been first executed on the attachment bond. Only if the attachment bond is insufficient to cover the
judgment award can Phil-Air be held liable.
A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy issued by the court where an action is pending to
be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant. The property is held by the sheriff as security
for the satisfaction of whatever judgment that might be secured by the attaching party against the
defendant.

The grant of the writ is conditioned not only on the finding of the court that there exists a valid ground for
its issuance. The Rules also require the applicant to post a bond.

Section 4 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) provides that "the party applying for the order
must...give a bond executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court, in its order granting the
issuance of the writ, conditioned that the latter will pay all the costs that may be adjudged to the adverse
party and all damages that he may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge
that the applicant was not entitled thereto."

The enforcement of the writ notwithstanding, the party whose property is attached is afforded relief to
have the attachment lifted.

There are various modes of discharging an attachment under Rule 57, viz.: (1) by depositing cash or
posting a counter-bond under Section 12; (2) by proving that the attachment bond was improperly or
irregularly issued or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient under Section 13; (3) by showing that the
attachment is excessive under Section 13; and (4) by claiming that the property is exempt from execution
under Section 2.

RCJ Lines availed of the first mode by posting a counter-bond.

Under the first mode, the court will order the discharge of the attachment after (1) the movant makes a
cash deposit or posts a counter-bond and (2) the court hears the motion to discharge the attachment with
due notice to the adverse party.

The discharge of the preliminary attachment either through Section 12 or Section 13 has no effect on and
does not discharge the attachment bond. The dissolution of the preliminary attachment does not result in
the dissolution of the attachment bond. Justice Narvasa, writing his separate opinion in one case,
explained:

The dissolution of the preliminary attachment upon security given [Section 12], or a showing of its
irregular or improper issuance [Section 13], does not of course operate to discharge the sureties on
plaintiffs own attachment bond. The reason is simple. That bond is executed to the adverse party,. . .
conditioned that the ... (applicant) will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and
all damages which he may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the
applicant was not entitled thereto." Hence, until that determination is made, as to the applicant's
entitlement to the attachment, his bond must stand and cannot be withdrawn.

We reverse the CA and RTC rulings.

As discussed above, it is patent that under the Rules, the attachment bond answers for all damages
incurred by the party against whom the attachment was issued.

Thus, Phil-Air cannot be held directly liable for the costs adjudged to and the damages sustained by RCJ
Lines because of the attachment. Section 4 of Rule 57 positively lays down the rule that the attachment
bond will pay "all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he may
sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled
thereto."

The RTC, instead of declaring Phil-Air liable for the alleged unrealized profits and counter-bond premium,
should have ordered the execution of the judgment award on the attachment bond. To impose direct
liability to Phil-Air would defeat the purpose of the attachment bond, which was not dissolved despite the
lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment.

The order to refund the counter-bond premium is likewise erroneous. The premium payment may be
deemed a cost incurred by RCJ Lines to lift the attachment. Such cost may be charged against the
attachment bond.