G.R. No. 206563 - UEM Mara Philippines Corp. vs. Ng Wee

On October 19, 2000, respondent Alejandro Ng Wee (“Ng Wee”) filed a Complaint for sum of money and applied for a writ of preliminary attachment against UEM Mara Philippines Corporation (now Cavitex Infrastructure Corporation, “UEM MARA”) and other defendants.
Ng Wee alleged that he invested substantial funds with Westmont Investment Corporation (“Wincorp”) on representations of high yield and no risk, but discovered that Wincorp funneled these funds as loans to Power Merge Corporation (“Power Merge”)—a newly formed entity with insufficient capitalization—through a secret side agreement releasing Power Merge from repayment.
Ng Wee claimed a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Wincorp, Power Merge, Luis Juan L. Virata (Power Merge’s ultimate beneficiary), and others, causing his losses amounting to ₱210,595,991.62.

On November 6, 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 39, granted Ng Wee’s application and issued a writ of preliminary attachment directed at the proportionate share of UEM MARA in the net revenue (“Project Income”) of the Manila–Cavite Tollway Project, garnished through the Philippine Reclamation Authority (“PRA”).
The PRA informed the sheriff that, as of November 7, 2000, no net revenue had been approved for distribution by the Joint Venture Project Committee, hence no income was then garnishable.
Ng Wee also attached Virata’s Forbes Park house and lot under TCT No. 133645.

UEM MARA and Virata moved to dismiss the Complaint and discharge the writ for failure to state a cause of action and deficiency of the real party in interest; the RTC denied these motions (2001–2002).
UEM MARA and Virata’s petitions for certiorari before this Court (G.R. Nos. 162928 and 74610) were denied in 2003–2004.
In 2010–2011, the parties contested the posting and sufficiency of a counter-bond to discharge attachments on Virata’s property and UEM MARA’s Project Income; the RTC (May 20, 2010) granted discharge of attachment on Virata’s property subject to counter-bond but retained attachment on UEM MARA’s income.
After motions, hearings, subpoenas to PRA, and presentation of UEM MARA’s audited financial statements for 2000–2001, the RTC (May 26, 2011) modified the counter-bond for Virata’s property and lifted the writ of attachment on UEM MARA’s Project Income.
The Court of Appeals (August 29, 2012 Decision; March 27, 2013 Resolution) granted Ng Wee’s petition for certiorari, ruling the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by lifting the attachment without a hearing and reinstated the writ on UEM MARA’s Project Income.
UEM MARA filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the CA’s reinstatement of the writ.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in reinstating the preliminary attachment writ on UEM MARA’s Project Income.
Whether the preliminary attachment writ ceased to exist by virtue of final judgment in Civil Case No. 00-99006, rendering any attachment void.
Whether UEM MARA’s absolution from liability in the main case deprives the attachment writ of legal basis.