G.R. No. 144740 - Security Pacific Assurance Corp. vs. Tria-Infante

On August 26, 1988, Reynaldo Anzures filed a complaint against Teresita Villaluz for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 9, docketed as Criminal Case No. 89-69257.
On March 6, 1989, Reynaldo Anzures filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Preliminary Attachment praying that a writ of preliminary attachment be issued on Villaluz's properties.
On July 3, 1989, the RTC issued an order allowing the writ of preliminary attachment to be issued upon Anzures’s posting of a bond fixed at ₱2,123,400.00.
Anzures posted the attachment bond, attachment of Villaluz's properties was effected, and the properties were annotated accordingly.

On May 25, 1990, the RTC acquitted Villaluz of the crime but held her civilly liable to pay Reynaldo Anzures ₱2,123,400.00 plus legal interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Villaluz appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on April 30, 1992, affirmed the civil liability aspect of the RTC's decision.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court (SC) as G.R. No. 106214.
During the pendency of the SC case, Villaluz posted a counter-bond in the amount of ₱2,500,000.00 issued by petitioner Security Pacific Assurance Corporation.

On September 5, 1997, the SC promulgated its decision affirming the Court of Appeals ruling in toto.
Following finality, private complainant moved for execution before the RTC.
On May 7, 1999, the RTC issued a writ of execution.
Sheriff Reynaldo R. Buazon attempted to serve the writ, but Villaluz was no longer residing at her known address.
The sheriff sent a Notice of Garnishment to the petitioner Security Pacific Assurance Corporation based on the counter-bond.
The petitioner refused to assume liability on the counter-bond, causing the private complainant to file a Motion to Proceed with Garnishment.
The RTC granted the motion on March 31, 2000.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA to nullify the RTC order.
The CA dismissed the petition on June 16, 2000, ruling no grave abuse of discretion was committed.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on August 22, 2000.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking relief from the CA rulings.
During the pendency, petitioner and the Anzures spouses executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning partial payments amounting to ₱1,541,063.85 and installment payments for the balance.
The MOU contained a proviso stating it did not waive or abandon the pending appellate review before the SC.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC order dated March 31, 2000, allowing execution on the counter-bond issued by petitioner Security Pacific Assurance Corporation.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the attachment on Villaluz's property was discharged without the need for court approval of the counter-bond.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the attachment on Villaluz's property was discharged by the mere act of posting the counter-bond.