G.R. No. 203530 - Luzon Development Bank vs. Krish

Petitioners – Luzon Development Bank, Tomas Clemente, Jr., and Oscar Ramirez – were respondents in a Collection of Sum of Money and Damages case filed by respondent Erlinda Krishnan on February 7, 2001.
Erlinda Krishnan, a client of the petitioners’ bank, claimed that her Time Deposit Certificates totaling P28,597,472.70 were due for payment; however, the petitioners refused payment on the grounds that the certificates were fraudulent.

Following the dispute over the fraudulent certificates, Erlinda obtained a Preliminary Writ of Attachment on February 27, 2001.
By virtue of that writ, certain accounts of the petitioner bank were garnished, including an account in BPI Family Bank for P28,597,472.70 and another in the Central Bank for P49,000,000.00.

On March 9, 2001, petitioners filed an urgent ex-parte Motion to Recall, Quash, and/or Lift the Attachment or Garnishment.
Petitioners subsequently filed an omnibus motion on August 15, 2001, seeking to substitute the garnished account with government securities and pushing for the immediate resolution of their motion to discharge the attachment.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) temporarily allowed additional time for petitioners to justify their motions in a May 22, 2002 order and further set a hearing schedule.

On September 8, 2003, the RTC issued an order lifting the attachment, which was immediately challenged by respondent Erlinda through motions for reconsideration and inhibition.
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on December 18, 2003 while granting the motion for inhibition.
These RTC orders were later questioned via a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which, on November 15, 2006, nullified the RTC orders dated September 8, 2003, and December 18, 2003, and provided a remedy by requiring the respondents to post a counterbond under Section 12, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioners’ subsequent motions for reconsideration before both the CA and the Supreme Court were ultimately denied.

On May 9, 2008, an order directed Erlinda to file a new attachment bond of P35,000,000.00, with petitioners required to file a counterbond within ten days.
Despite filing motions for reconsideration and petitions regarding the sufficiency of bonds or alternative deposit of bank property, subsequent orders (dated September 24, 2010; May 26, 2011; and June 27, 2011) reinstated the writ of attachment.
Following a series of motions—including an urgent motion to suspend or recall the reinstated writ—petitioners finally elevated the issue to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari challenging the CA’s affirmation of the RTC’s orders reinstating the writ of attachment.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision which denied petitioners’ motion to have bank property deposited in lieu of a cash deposit or counterbond to secure the attachment.

Whether the term “deposit” in Section 2 and Section 5 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court can be interpreted to include the option of depositing real property, as argued by the petitioners, instead of strictly requiring a monetary deposit or a counterbond.

The issue interrogates the plain meaning of key statutory terms and whether a broader interpretation that would allow for an alternative mode of security (i.e., deposit of real property) is permissible under the established rules governing attachment and release thereof.