Case Digest (G.R. No. 175727)
Facts:
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Florencio O. Villarin and First Cargomasters Corporation, Cebu Arrastre & Stevedoring Services Corporation and Guerrero G. Dajao, G.R. Nos. 175727 and 178713, March 9, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Lorenzo Shipping Corporation (LSC) is an interisland shipping company; respondents include Florencio O. Villarin and others (collectively, Villarin, et al.), and Cebu Arrastre and Stevedoring Services Corporation (CASSCOR) with its president Guerrero G. Dajao. Villarin and Cabanlit entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Dajao by which Villarin and Cabanlit would operate CASSCOR’s arrastre and stevedoring operations; CASSCOR contracted with LSC under a separate Cargo Handling Contract dated March 8, 1997.
Villarin, Cabanlit and First Cargomasters Corporation filed a Complaint for specific performance, accounting and damages against CASSCOR and Dajao, later amended (June 20, 2000) to implead LSC as a nominal defendant and to pray for preliminary attachment and a mandatory injunction; the case was docketed Civil Case No. CEB-25283. An initial writ of preliminary attachment issued June 21, 2000. The matter was re-raffled among RTC branches; on May 11, 2004 RTC Branch 6 (Judge Anacleto Caminade) granted a motion for preliminary attachment conditioned on a P150,000 bond; LSC moved for clarification/reconsideration and filed a counter-bond, which led to discharge of that writ. On June 16, 2004 Judge Caminade issued an order clarifying that the attachment was directed at all defendants, including LSC, finding them “guilty of fraud in the performance of the obligation.” LSC petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) via Rule 65 certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 86333) challenging inclusion in the attachment writ.
Separately, Villarin, et al. moved (Nov. 23, 2004) to require LSC to deposit in court Php10,297,499.59 based on an audit report and a January 5, 2004 letter from LSC’s VP for Finance (the Valeros letter). On August 12, 2005 RTC Branch 20 (Judge Bienvenido R. Saniel, Jr.) granted the motion (Order to Deposit). LSC moved for reconsideration; on March 9, 2006 Judge Saniel granted reconsideration and set aside the deposit order, noting counterbonds earlier posted and that the issue of privity was unresolved. Villarin, et al. filed a certiorari petition with the CA (CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 01855) claiming grave abuse; the CA (Sept. 7, 2006) annulled the March 9 and May 30, 2006 orders and reinstated the August 12, 2005 deposit order, reasoning the counterbond was inadequate and invoking Rule 135 and prior precedents. LSC filed Rule 45 petitions from both CA decisions (doc...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was it proper to subject petitioner Lorenzo Shipping Corporation—impleaded as a nominal defendant—to a writ of preliminary attachment under Rule 57, Sections 1(b) and 1(d) of the Rules of Court?
- Was the RTC’s Order of August 12, 2005 requiring LSC to deposit Php10,297,499.59 in court as a provisional remedy proper under Rule 1...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)