G.R. No. 48080 - De Borja vs. Platon

The case arose from a dispute involving Jose de Borja (petitioner) and Servillano Platon and Francisco de Borja (respondents).
Petitioner sought the setting aside of an order for preliminary attachment issued on November 6, 1940, and reiterated on January 13, 1941, which affected his properties.

On August 12, 1936, petitioner initiated a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Hermogena Romero, Francisco de Borja, Josefa Tangco, and Crisanto de Borja.

The primary relief sought was the annulment of a second sale by Francisco de Borja to Hermogena Romero of the Hacienda Jalajala.
The petitioner also demanded damages amounting to P25,000.

In response, on August 29, 1936, Francisco de Borja and his wife Josefa Tangco submitted an answer containing three counterclaims.

On August 4, 1937, the defendants (Francisco de Borja, Josefa Tangco, and Crisanto de Borja) filed an amended answer.

Their submission included a general denial, special defenses, and five counterclaims (cross-complaints).
The counterclaims alleged that petitioner, being the son of Francisco de Borja and Josefa Tangco, had been entrusted with managing the family’s extensive estate interests but had been unfaithful to his trust.

Declaration of ownership of the disputed portion of Hacienda Jalajala in favor of the spouses Borja and Tangco.
An accounting of the received products of the hacienda with an order for the petitioner to pay at least P100,000 allegedly retained illegally.
An accounting for proceeds of rice and bran with an order for the petitioner to pay at least P700,000 unlawfully kept.
Payment of P20,000 and an additional P9,034 collected from a debtor of the spouses.
Turnover of P40,000 received as indemnity from an insurance policy on the spouses’ property.

On July 27, 1940, Francisco de Borja and his wife filed a petition for preliminary attachment.

The attachment was sought to cover the third, fourth, and fifth grounds for their cross-complaint totaling P69,035.
The petition omitted the first two causes on the ground that at that time the visible property of the petitioner was insufficient (worth only about P2,000) for attachment.

On August 21, 1940, petitioner filed an amended answer, introducing a counterclaim against Francisco de Borja and his wife in the sum of P99,175.46.

That no writ of attachment may be issued in favor of a defendant who has presented a counterclaim.
That the affidavit supporting the petition for writ was fatally defective for failing to specify “the amount due to the plaintiff is as much as the sum for which the order is granted” as required under section 426, Code of Civil Procedure, and section 3, Rule 59, Rules of Court.

The trial court had before it substantive evidence presented by both parties, including the comparative amounts of the counterclaims:

The petitioner’s counterclaim was P99,175.46.
The aggregate counterclaims of Francisco de Borja and his wife amounted to approximately P869,000, exceeding the petitioner’s by roughly P769,000.

Whether a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued in favor of a defendant who has presented a counterclaim.
The contention revolves around the notion that establishing a counterclaim should preclude the issuance of such an attachment, versus the modern approach which seeks speedy and effective protection of assets.

Whether the affidavit attached to the petition for a writ of preliminary attachment was fatally defective due to its failure to explicitly allege that “the amount due to the plaintiff is as much as the sum for which the order is granted.”
This issue draws on interpretative compliance with section 426 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 3, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, particularly in light of the relative sums involved in the counterclaims.