Case Digest (G.R. No. 259709)
Facts:
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Angel Y. Pobre and Gino Nicholas Pobre, G.R. No. 259709, August 30, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation; respondents are Angel Y. Pobre (a Shell retailer/operator) and Gino Nicholas Pobre (who later assumed operation/supply at the same sites).In 2008–2009 petitioner and Angel executed three Retailer Supply Agreements (RSAs) covering three Shell stations in Tuguegarao City. On October 26, 2017 Angel notified Shell of his resignation effective December 16, 2017. On December 15, 2017 Angel made a last purchase of Shell products amounting to P4,846,555.84, then sought set-off for promotional receivables. On March 9, 2018 petitioner sent a reconciliation claiming a net outstanding of P2,787,529.33; the same day Gino wrote requesting removal of Shell signages, asserting he had assumed ownership of the properties.
Petitioner demanded payment and adherence to the RSAs and alleged a unilateral, improper assignment to Gino (a Phoenix Petroleum retailer). When negotiations failed, petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and collection with an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment before Branch 62, RTC Makati, seeking P4,846,555.84 (principal) and various damages aggregating to much larger sums, and asked the court for attachment on grounds of fraud in performance under Section 1(d), Rule 57.
On May 17, 2019 the RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment directing levy over respondents' properties to secure petitioner's total claimed amount of P92,846,555.84. Respondents filed motions to reconsider and to discharge; the RTC on October 7, 2019 reduced the attached amount by excluding moral and exemplary damages (to P89,846,555.84). After re-raffle and an Omnibus Motion for Inhibition with Motion for Reconsideration, the newly assigned judge denied reconsideration on February 14, 2020.
Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) contending the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing and maintaining the writ. In CA-G.R. SP No. 165174 the CA, in a Decision dated March 23, 2021 (pen. J. Barrios), set aside the RTC orders, dissolved and lifted the writ, and found petitioner failed to prove fraud and that respondents lacked sufficient security; it also held the attachment was excessive. ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was respondents’ petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals filed within the 60‑day period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in lifting and dissolving the Writ of Preliminary Attachment is...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)