G.R. No. L-21289 - Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration

Petitioner D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. (WENCESLAO) is a domestic construction corporation engaged in infrastructure, foundation works, and subdivision development. Its vice-president, Dominador S. Dayrit, is the signatory officer of the company.
Respondent Readycon Trading and Construction Corporation (READYCON) is equally a domestic corporate entity, primarily engaged in manufacturing and selling asphalt materials.

WENCESLAO entered into a contract with the Public Estates Authority (PEA) for the improvement of the main expressway in the R-1 Toll Project along the Coastal Road in Parañaque City. In order to fulfill its contractual obligation to the PEA, WENCESLAO executed a contract with READYCON on April 16, 1991.
Under the contract with READYCON:

READYCON agreed to supply asphalt materials valued at P1,178,308.75.
WENCESLAO was bound to pay a twenty-percent (20%) downpayment (P235,661.75) upon delivery and the remaining balance (P942,647.00) within fifteen (15) days after the delivery of the materials.
READYCON was further obligated to deliver, lay, roll the asphalt, and, if necessary, perform any corrective work at the jobsite.

On April 22, 1991, READYCON delivered asphalt materials worth P1,150,531.75, and WENCESLAO duly paid the obligated downpayment of P235,661.75.
READYCON performed its contractual obligation by laying and rolling the asphalt at the designated jobsite.
Approximately fifteen (15) days post-performance, READYCON demanded the payment of the balance.
Despite demand letters and a written demand by READYCON’s counsel on May 30, 1991, WENCESLAO did not pay the remaining balance nor respond to the demands.

On July 19, 1991, READYCON filed a complaint at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Civil Case No. 61159, for collection of a sum of money and damages, and requested a writ of preliminary attachment.
READYCON complied with procedural requirements by timely posting a bond of P1,150,000, resulting in the RTC Sheriff attaching heavy equipment (asphalt paver, bulldozer, dozer, grader) belonging to WENCESLAO.
Subsequently, on September 16, 1991, WENCESLAO filed a motion for the release of the attached equipment by posting a counter-bond, which led to their release on September 25, 1991.

On December 26, 1994, the RTC rendered judgment ordering WENCESLAO to pay READYCON P1,014,110.45 (the sum comprising the balance and additional unpaid amounts), with interest at 12% per annum (compounded annually) from August 9, 1991, until full payment, plus attorney’s fees and litigation costs. The counterclaim of WENCESLAO seeking damages for wrongful attachment was dismissed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in subsequent rulings (January 30, 2002, and June 20, 2002).
WENCESLAO contested:

The interpretation of the contract by claiming it involved not only the sale of materials but also the provision of a service, asserting that the balance should only be payable after the government’s acceptance of READYCON’s work.
The occurrence of wrongful and damaging attachment of its heavy equipment, stating that the attachment caused considerable losses (a claimed loss of P1.9 million over 19 days, additional expenses for pullout and repair).

READYCON, in its defense, maintained that the issuance of the writ was properly executed under the law—with no finding of malice or bad faith—and that WENCESLAO’s own inaction (i.e., failure to respond to demands or promptly file a counter-bond) was the cause of any alleged damage.

Whether READYCON is liable to pay actual or compensatory damages to WENCESLAO for the alleged wrongful issuance and enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment.
Whether the posting of a counter-bond by WENCESLAO constitutes a waiver of the right to claim damages arising from the attachment.

Whether WENCESLAO’s obligation to pay the balance under the contract was already due and demandable as of May 30, 1991, when READYCON made its demand.
Whether the contract implied that the balance was payable only upon the government's acceptance of the work, despite the explicit contractual term of payment within fifteen (15) days after delivery.

Whether the appeal by certiorari raised questions of fact or solely errors in law regarding the interpretation of the contract and the propriety of the writ.