Writ of Attachments Case Digests

TORRES v. SATSATIN G.R. No. 166759, November 05, 2009

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:
W/N CA erred in finding that RTC was guilty of GADALEJ in the issuance and implementation of the
WOA

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
PHIL-AIR CONDITIONING CENTER v. RCJ LINES, G.R. No. 193821, November
23, 2015

Facts:
On various dates between March 5, 1990, and August 29, 1990, petitioner Phil-Air sold to
respondent RCJ Lines four Carrier Paris 240 air-conditioning units for buses (units).
RCJ 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. It also
purportedly repaired the control switch panel of one of the units for an additional cost of
P60,000.00.
RCJ Lines issued three post-dated checks in favor of Phil-Air to partly cover the unpaid
balance:
All the post-dated checks were dishonored when Phil-Air subsequently presented them for
payment.
Phil-Air sent a demand letter to Rolando Abadilla, Sr. on April 7, 1992, asking him to fund
the post-dated checks.
On July 17, 1996, Phil-Air demanded payment from Rolando Abadilla, Jr., for the total
amount of P734,994.00... plus interest
In view of the failure of RCJ Lines to pay the balance despite demand, Phil-Air filed on April
1, 1998 the 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 Phil-Air allegedly breached its... warranty.
RCJ Lines averred that the units did not sufficiently cool the buses despite repeated repairs.
As it turned out, the Carrier Paris 240 model was not suited to the 45 to 49-seater buses
operated by RCJ Lines. The units, according to RCJ Lines, were defective and did not attain
full operational condition.
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. Two buses of RCJ
Lines were attached pursuant to the writ dated December 18, 1998. The writ was executed
on April 21, 1999. 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 RTC decision in toto.
Issues:
Whether Phil-Air should reimburse RCJ Lines for the counter- bond premium and its
alleged unrealized profits;
Whether RCJ Lines proved its alleged unrealized profits arising from the enforcement of the
preliminary writ of attachment; and
Ruling:
Phil-Air is not 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.
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 amount of the cash deposit or counter-bond must be equal to that fixed by the court in
the order of attachment, exclusive of costs. The cash deposit or counter-bond shall secure
the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the action.
The filing of a counter-bond to discharge the attachment applies when there has already
been a seizure of property by the sheriff and all that is entailed is the presentation of a
motion to the proper court, seeking approval of a cash or surety bond in an amount
equivalent to... the value of the property seized and the lifting of the attachment on the basis
thereof. The counter-bond stands in place of the property so released.
To be clear, the discharge of the attachment by depositing cash or posting a counter-bond
under Section 12 should not be confused with the discharge sanctioned under Section 13.
Section 13 speaks of discharge on the ground that the writ was improperly or irregularly
issued or... enforced, or that the attachment bond is insufficient, or that the attachment is
excessive.
To reiterate, the discharge under Section 12 takes effect upon posting of a counter-bond or
depositing cash, and after hearing to determine the sufficiency of the cash deposit or
counter-bond. On the other hand, the discharge under Section 13 takes effect only upon
showing that... the plaintiffs attachment bond was improperly or irregularly issued, or that
the bond is insufficient. The discharge of the attachment under Section 13 must be made
only after hearing.
These differences notwithstanding, 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.
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.
In the present case, the RTC lifted the preliminary attachment after it heard RCJ Lines'
urgent motion to discharge attachment and the latter posted a counter-bond. The RTC
found that there was no fraud and Phil-Air had no sufficient cause of action for the issuance
of the writ... of the attachment. As a consequence, it ordered Phil-Air to refund the premium
payment for the counter-bond and the losses suffered by RCJ Lines resulting from the
enforcement of the writ. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto.
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.

CUARTERO v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 102448 August 5, 1992

FACTS:
 Cuartero filed a complaint before the RTC of Quezon City against the Evangelista
spouses, for a sum of money plus damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment.
 RTC issued an order granting ex-parte the petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment.
 The writ of preliminary attachment was issued pursuant to the RTC’s order. On the same
day, the summons for the spouses Evangelista was prepared.
 The following day, a copy of the writ of preliminary attachment, the order, the summons
and the complaint were all simultaneously served upon the private respondents at their
residence. Immediately, Deputy Sheriff Sula levied, attached and pulled out the
properties in compliance with the court's directive to attach all the properties of private
respondents not exempt from execution, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to
satisfy the petitioner's principal claim in the amount of P2,171,794.91.
 Subsequently, the spouses Evangelista filed motion to set aside the order and discharge
the writ of preliminary attachment for having been irregularly and improperly issued.
The lower court denied the motion for lack of merit.
 Private respondents, then, filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA
questioning the orders of the lower court with a prayer for a restraining order or writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the judge from taking further proceedings below.
 CA resolved not to grant the prayer for restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunction.
o CA granted the petition for certiorari and rendered the questioned decision.
Hence, the present recourse to this Court.
ISSUE: WON the RTC could validly issue the subject writ of attachment
DECISION: YES. Petition GRANTED. Order of attachment REINSTATED.
HELD:
 The Spouses argue that no proper ground existed for the issuance of the writ of
preliminary attachment. They stress that the fraud in contracting the debt or incurring
the obligation upon which the action is brought which comprises a ground for
attachment must have already been intended at the inception of the contract. According
to them, there was no intent to defraud the petitioner when the postdated checks were
issued inasmuch as the latter was aware that the same were not yet funded and that they
were issued only for purposes of creating an evidence to prove a pre-existing obligation.
 Another point which the private respondents raised in their comment is the alleged
violation of their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process when the writ was
issued without notice and hearing.
 Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v. CA- The question which was resolved in the Davao
Light case is whether or not a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex-parte against
a defendant before the court acquires jurisdiction over the latter's person by service of
summons or his voluntary submission to the court's authority. The Court answered in
the affirmative.
 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 might be secured in said action by the attaching
creditor against the defendant (Adlawan v. Tomol, [1990] citing Virata v. Aquino,
[1973]).
 Under section 3, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, the only requisites for the issuance of the
writ are the affidavit and bond of the applicant. No notice to the adverse party or hearing
of the application is required inasmuch as the time which the hearing will take could be
enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property before a writ of
attachment issues. In such a case, a hearing would render nugatory the purpose of this
provisional remedy. The ruling remains good law. There is, thus, no merit in the private
respondents' claim of violation of their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process.
 The writ of preliminary attachment can be applied for and granted at the
commencement of the action or at any time thereafter (Section 1, Rule 57, Rules of
Court). In Davao Light and Power, Co., Inc. v. CA, the phrase "at the commencement of
the action" is interpreted as referring to the date of the filing of the complaint which is a
time before summons is served on the defendant or even before summons issues.
 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. 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.
 It must be emphasized that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment practically
involves three stages:
o 1ST , the court issues the order granting the application;
o 2ND, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and
o 3RD, the writ is implemented.
 For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant should first be obtained. However, once the
implementation commences, it is required that 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.
 The question as to whether a proper ground existed for the issuance of the writ is a
question of fact the determination of which can only be had in appropriate proceedings
conducted for the purpose (Peroxide Philippines Corporation V. CA, [1991]). It must be
 noted that the spouses Evangelista's motion to discharge the writ of preliminary
attachment was denied by the lower court for lack of merit. There is no showing that
there was an abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court in denying the motion.
 Moreover, an attachment may not be dissolved by a showing of its irregular or improper
issuance if it is upon a ground which is at the same time the applicant's cause of action in
the main case since an anomalous situation would result if the issues of the main case
would be ventilated and resolved in a mere hearing of a motion (Davao Light and Power
Co., Inc. v. CA, Solidbank v. CA [1991]).
 In the present case, one of the allegations in petitioner's complaint below is that the
defendant spouses induced the plaintiff to grant the loan by issuing postdated checks to
cover the installment payments and a separate set of postdated cheeks for payment of
the stipulated interest. The issue of fraud, then, is clearly within the competence of the
lower court in the main action.