G.R. No. 230334 - People vs. XXX

On September 23, 2005, Northern Islands Co., Inc. (petitioner) filed a complaint against spouses Dennis and Cherylin Garcia (respondents) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-53699, with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment.
The complaint was amended on October 25, 2005.
Petitioner alleged that from March to July 2004, it delivered various appliances valued at P8,040,825.17 to respondents, which were accepted in good condition.
The parties agreed that payment was due within 120 days with an 18% per annum interest on unpaid amounts.
Despite demands, respondents failed to pay and fraudulently claimed petitioner lacked proof of delivery.
Petitioner posted a bond of P8,040,825.17 through Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation.
On November 7, 2005, the RTC issued the writ of preliminary attachment.

Instead of filing an answer, on November 11, 2005 (not 2001 as typo in text), respondents filed a motion requesting extension to file proper pleading and for discovery, seeking to inspect original invoices and delivery receipts, claiming inability to file intelligent answer without originals.
On January 11, 2006, respondents moved to discharge excess attachment, arguing the value of attached properties (approximated at P17,273,409.73 by their appraiser) exceeded the attachment bond by around P9,232,564.56.
The RTC denied respondents’ motion for extension and directed them to file their answer, which they complied with on April 3, 2006.
Respondents again filed a motion for discovery on April 7, 2006.

Denied the motion to discharge excess attachment, holding the appraisal submitted was not a true valuation and the bond posted was sufficient security.
Granted the motion for discovery under Rule 27 of the Rules of Court despite petitioner’s claim of non-possession of originals.

No production or inspection occurred on July 10, 2006, as respondents received the order only after that date.
Respondents filed a motion for partial reconsideration on July 25, 2006, requesting referral to a commissioner to determine property values and discharging any excess attachment, and for modification of the discovery order to compel production of originals.
RTC denied this motion on August 23, 2006.

Respondents elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari and mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97448.
Meanwhile, RTC rendered a decision on September 21, 2011 dismissing petitioner’s amended complaint due to lack of evidence of agreed pricing.
Petitioner filed a timely appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeals on October 27, 2011.
RTC ordered the elevation of records to the Court of Appeals on January 25, 2012, and the appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 98237.
Records show respondents did not appeal the RTC decision.

On January 19, 2012, the Court of Appeals partly granted respondents’ certiorari petition:

Ordered the RTC to appoint a commissioner pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules of Court to determine the value of attached properties and discharge any excess attachment found.
Denied respondents’ motion for discovery, ruling that petitioner could not be compelled to produce originals not in its possession.

Petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied on August 24, 2012.
Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Regional Trial Court lost jurisdiction over the matter of preliminary attachment after petitioner perfected an appeal and the case records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the appointment of a commissioner to determine the value of the attached property and the subsequent discharge of any excess attachment.