G.R. No. 83897 - Uy, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

On March 24, 1982, petitioner Esteban B. Uy, Jr. filed a complaint against Sy Yuk Tat for sum of money, damages, and preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. Q-34782 in the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch LII (later Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch XCVII).
The filing was supported by a bond of P232,780.00, leading the court to issue a writ of preliminary attachment and appoint Deputy Sheriff Nilo S. Cabang as Special Sheriff to enforce the writ.

On April 6, 1982, a break-open order was issued at the motion of petitioner Uy.
On April 7, 1982, Special Sheriff Cabang began implementing the writ of preliminary attachment.
On April 19, 1982, Cabang filed a Partial Sheriff’s Return which included a physical inventory of attached items at No. 65 Speaker Perez Street, Quezon City, detailing merchandise such as:

On April 12, 1982, a third party claim was filed by Wilson Ting and Yu Hon in the same Civil Case No. Q-34782, asserting ownership over certain attached properties (specifically those at No. 65 Speaker Perez St.) as enumerated in the Partial Sheriff’s Return dated April 13, 1982.
On April 19, 1982, shortly after filing his sheriff’s return, Cabang was faced with a motion by Ting and Yu Hon to dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment, alleging that the seized properties actually belonged to them.
Petitioner Uy opposed this motion.

On April 29, 1982, Judge Jose P. Castro rendered a default judgment in favor of petitioner Uy.
On June 7, 1982, petitioner Uy filed an ex parte motion for a writ of execution, which was granted on June 8, 1982.
On June 24, 1982, Uy filed another ex parte motion authorizing the sale of the attached properties on the ground that the goods, being perishable, risked deterioration.

On May 5, 1982, Ting and Yu Hon filed a complaint for damages with an application for a preliminary injunction against Uy and Cabang, alleging that the properties seized were theirs.
The court in the second case, presided over by Judge Concepcion B. Buencamino, issued an order maintaining the status quo regarding the attached properties pending resolution of the dispute.

Petitioner Uy along with Cabang filed a motion to quash or dissolve the status quo order, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with properties held under a matter of “custodia legis.”
The motion was denied on July 2, 1982, in the second case.
On July 12, 1982, in the first case, Cabang filed another Partial Sheriff’s Return indicating partial satisfaction of the judgment and the public auction sale of certain properties.

In the second case, on August 23, 1982, Ting and Yu Hon filed another motion for preliminary attachment, leading the court a quo to issue an order on August 24, 1982, granting the writ of preliminary attachment upon the plaintiffs posting a bond of P1,430,070.00.
Petitioner Uy responded with an urgent motion to quash or dissolve this attachment order on August 31, 1982, which was opposed by Ting and Yu Hon.
Subsequently, on February 21, 1982 (note the timeline overlaps but reflects subsequent procedural exchanges), Uy filed a motion for a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses, which later culminated in the denial of the motion to dismiss on October 10, 1983.
Additional motions to quash the writ of attachment in the second case were denied on December 9, 1983, and subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied on February 15, 1985, by the presiding judge.

Following these compounded proceedings, petitioners Uy and Cabang filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or a restraining order before the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to annul and set aside the orders dated August 24, 1982, and October 10, 1983.
The CA dismissed the petition, holding that:

The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion or act without jurisdiction in denying petitioners’ motions;
Procedural defaults and the nature of the attachment order did not warrant reversal.

Whether properties that were already levied and seized by virtue of a writ of attachment and subsequently by a writ of execution are under “custodia legis,” thereby placing them beyond the jurisdiction of a different court when a third party claims ownership.
Whether interference by another court by issuing a writ or order concerning such properties violates the principle that attachment is limited to properties belonging to the defendant.

Whether the sheriff’s actions, including the execution of the writ of attachment, physical inventory (Partial Sheriff’s Return) and eventual sale of certain attached properties, exceeded his authority when properties not belonging to the judgment debtor were involved.
Whether the subsequent motions (for quashing the attachment, for dissolving the status quo order) were proper exercises of judicial discretion, particularly when considered alongside ex parte proceedings.

Whether technical defects such as non-joinder of a necessary party (the husband of private respondent Yu Hon) or failure to verify the complaint justify the dismissal of the action.
Whether the absence of notice and hearing in the issuance of a writ of attachment—as permitted ex parte by judicial rules—can be remedied by subsequent motions for reconsideration.