Facts:

The case involves Edgar S. Asuncion as the petitioner and the Peninsula Natural Resources Corporation as the respondent. The events leading to this case began on September 17, 1987, when Asuncion filed a complaint against Peninsula in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. The complaint sought to collect a loan based on a promissory note executed by Peninsula and signed by its president, Lorenzo Palao. Along with the complaint, Asuncion applied for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, supported by an affidavit from former Court of Appeals Justice Elias B. Asuncion, who was also the chairman of the board of directors of Peninsula at the time the loan was extended. The application alleged fraudulent removal, concealment, or disposition of Peninsula's properties. On September 24, 1987, the trial court granted the application and issued the writ of attachment after Asuncion posted a bond of P80,000.

On October 14, 1987, Peninsula filed an unverified motion to lift...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Edgar S. Asuncion (petitioner) initiated a complaint on September 17, 1987, in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig seeking the collection of a loan based on a promissory note executed and signed by Peninsula Natural Resources Corporation’s president, Lorenzo Palao.
• The complaint was accompanied by an application for the ex parte issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, based on allegations of fraudulent removal, concealment, or disposition of properties, or the intent to do so.
• The supporting affidavit was executed by former Court of Appeals Justice Elias B. Asuncion—who was also the petitioner’s father and had served as chairman of the board of directors of the respondent—asserting that the fraudulent acts were imminent.

Issuance of the Writ of Attachment and Subsequent Proceedings

• On September 24, 1987, after the petitioner posted a bond of P80,000.00, the trial court granted the application and issued the writ of preliminary attachment against the respondent.
• The grounds for such issuance were predicated on a suspicion that the respondent, Peninsula, was about to dispose of or had already disposed of its properties to defraud creditors.

Respondent’s Actions and the Motion to Lift the Attachment

• On October 14, 1987, Peninsula filed an unverified motion seeking the lifting of the attachment, arguing that the alleged fraudulent conduct existed only in the petitioner’s mind.
• The motion was supported by an affidavit of Leoncio Fonacier, who claimed that:
• The petitioner’s claim of P150,000.00 represented a previous investment by Peninsula’s former chairman.
• Through fraudulent manipulations, said investment had been converted into a loan obligation and assigned to ESAS Development Corporation.
• Notably, no copy of the motion was furnished to the petitioner, effectively denying him the opportunity to contest the allegations.

Trial Court’s Hearings and Orders

• The trial court conducted a hearing on the respondent’s October motion to lift the attachment and, on November 4, 1987, denied the motion.
• Subsequently, Peninsula moved for reconsideration and indicated its willingness to post a counter-attachment bond.
• In a joint hearing on November 26, 1987:
• The trial court denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration as well as the petitioner’s motion to pull out the attached properties.
• It also mandated that the respondent must post a counter-attachment bond of P301,935.41 by December 4, 1987, warning that failure to do so would result in:
• Approval of the petitioner’s motion to pull out the attached properties.
• Placement of the properties in a secure location as agreed upon by the court, the deputy sheriff, and the petitioner.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals and Further Developments

• Displeased with the trial court’s ruling, Peninsula advanced the case to the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, with a request for a restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction.
• On January 22, 1988, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decisions by annulling and setting aside the orders that allowed the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment and denied the lifting of the attachment.
• The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ decision, which was subsequently denied on February 23, 1988, prompting the present petition for review.

Issue:

• Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the ex parte writ of preliminary attachment based on allegations of fraudulent disposition of property.
• Whether the trial court erred in denying Peninsula’s motion to lift the attachment despite the presented affidavit and allegations.
• Whether the Court of Appeals improperly annulled and set aside the trial court’s orders, thus committing a reversible error.
• Whether the counter-attachment bond imposed by the trial court, originally fixed at P301,935.41, was excessive in relation to the amounts claimed in the petitioner’s causes of action.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)