G.R. No. 219345 - Security Bank Corp. vs. Great Wall Commercial Press Co., Inc.

On May 15, 2013, Security Bank Corporation (“Security Bank”) filed a Complaint for Sum of Money with application for a writ of preliminary attachment against Great Wall Commercial Press Co., Inc. (“Great Wall”) and its sureties (Alfredo Buriel Atienza, Fredino Cheng Atienza, spouses Frederick Cheng Atienza and Monica Cu Atienza), seeking recovery of unpaid obligations under trust receipts and surety agreements, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The total principal claimed was ₱10,000,000.00.
Security Bank alleged respondents failed to pay their obligations despite maturity dates between December 11, 2012 and May 7, 2013.

On May 31, 2013, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, Makati City, granted the application and issued a writ of preliminary attachment, subject to Security Bank’s posting of a ₱10,000,000.00 bond.
On June 3, 2013, respondents filed a Motion to Lift Writ of Preliminary Attachment ad Cautelam, arguing (a) no prima facie showing of fraud, (b) affidavits failed to allege circumstances of fraud, and (c) general imputation of fraud contradicted by loan‐restructure efforts.
In an Order dated July 4, 2013, the RTC denied the motion, finding that (a) representations and warranties in the Credit Agreement and Suretyship Agreement were fraudulent when violated, (b) respondents executed trust receipt agreements but failed to return goods or remit proceeds, and (c) respondents failed to explain non‐return, thus committing fraud.
The RTC likewise denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on August 12, 2013.

Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari, challenging the denial of their motion to lift the attachment.
On December 12, 2014, the CA granted the petition, lifted the writ of preliminary attachment, and held that (a) non‐payment alone did not prove fraud, (b) trust receipt violations did not per se constitute fraud, (c) respondents’ repayment proposal negated fraudulent intent, and (d) fraud must be present at contracting, not performance.
Security Bank’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on June 26, 2015.

Security Bank filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, G.R. No. 219345, raising the sole issue of whether the CA erred in nullifying the preliminary attachment writ.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in lifting the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the RTC on the ground that Security Bank failed to sufficiently show fraud in contracting or performance of the obligation under Rule 57, Section 1(d) of the Rules of Court.