Facts:

The case of Guillermo A. Cu Unjieng and Mariano Cu Unjieng vs. Mariano A. Albert and Leonard S. Goddard, both Acting as Judges of First Instance of Manila, and National City Bank of New York was decided on September 27, 1933, under G.R. No. 38316. The National City Bank of New York initiated a lawsuit against the petitioners, Guillermo A. Cu Unjieng and Mariano Cu Unjieng, in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to recover a sum of money. The bank's complaint alleged that the petitioners conspired to defraud the bank by preparing and fabricating numerous warehouse receipts and corporate share certificates through forgery. As a result of this fraudulent activity, the petitioners allegedly obtained loans and cash advances from the bank based on these forged documents. Upon the filing of the complaint, the court issued a writ of attachment against the petitioners' properties. The petitioners subsequently filed a motion to discharge the attachment, which was d...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Guillermo A. Cu Unjieng and Mariano Cu Unjieng.
   • Respondents: Mariano A. Albert and Leonard S. Goddard (Judges of First Instance of Manila) and National City Bank of New York.

2. Nature of the Case:

   • The National City Bank of New York filed a lawsuit against the petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that the petitioners conspired to defraud the bank.
   • The bank claimed that the petitioners forged warehouse receipts and corporate share certificates, which they used to fraudulently obtain loans and cash advances from the bank.

3. Attachment of Property:

   • At the time of filing the complaint, the bank secured a writ of attachment against the petitioners' properties.
   • The petitioners filed a motion to discharge the attachment, which was denied by the trial court.

4. Amended Complaint and Affidavit:

   • During the hearing on the motion to discharge the attachment, the bank amended its complaint and filed an amended affidavit for attachment.
   • The petitioners did not object to the sufficiency of the original affidavit but contested the issuance of the writ of attachment.

5. Legal Basis for Attachment:

   • The petitioners argued that the cause of action was ex delicto (arising from a wrongful act) and therefore not covered under Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes attachment in specific cases.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Interpretation of Section 412:

   • The Court interpreted Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes attachment in specific cases, including fraud in contracting a debt or incurring an obligation.
   • The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the cause of action must arise from a contract, express or implied, to justify attachment. It held that the statute should be read as written, and limiting it to contractual obligations would contradict the legislative intent.

2. Amendment of Affidavit and Complaint:

   • The Court ruled that there was no objection to amending the affidavit for attachment, as the original affidavit was not defective. The amendment merely added a new ground for attachment, which was permissible under the law.

3. Fraud as a Basis for Attachment:

   • The Court emphasized that the complaint and affidavit clearly alleged fraud, which is a valid ground for attachment under Section 412, paragraph 4.

4. Statutory Construction:

   • The Court noted that attachments are purely statutory, and the interpretation of the statute must align with its plain language and legislative intent.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upheld the writ of attachment, and ruled that the trial court acted within its authority in permitting the amendment of the affidavit and complaint. Costs were imposed against the petitioners.