G.R. No. 121365 - People vs. Salimbago

Watercraft Venture Corporation operates yacht building, repair, storage and maintenance services in Subic Bay Freeport Zone, charging US$272.00 per month plus 4% interest for unpaid boat‐storage fees.
In June 1997, Watercraft hired Alfred Raymond Wolfe—a British national—as its Shipyard Manager; Wolfe stored his sailboat, the Knotty Gull, in Watercraft’s facilities but paid no storage fees.

Wolfe contended he was actually Service and Repair Manager, that the sailboat was purchased under a tripartite agreement to be repaired, used for training, then sold, and that no storage fee was agreed upon. He also claimed a 10% sales commission as agent.
Watercraft terminated Wolfe’s employment on March 7, 2002. In June 2002 Wolfe removed the Knotty Gull after signing a Boat Pull-Out Clearance dated June 29, 2002, acknowledging an outstanding obligation of US$16,324.82 for unpaid storage fees but without payment.

On July 7, 2005, Watercraft filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money with Damages and an ex parte Application for Writ of Preliminary Attachment in RTC Branch 170, Malabon City. The RTC granted the writ on July 15, 2005, conditioned on a bond of ₱3,231,589.25.
In August–September 2005, Wolfe’s two vehicles and bank accounts were levied; a third vehicle was attached but an intervenor claimed ownership.

On November 8, 2005, Wolfe moved to discharge the writ, arguing lack of fraud and that he was not a flight risk; the RTC denied the motion and its reconsideration in March and November 2006.
The Court of Appeals, on September 27, 2007, granted certiorari, annulling the RTC orders and voiding the attachments; its January 24, 2008 Resolution denied reconsideration.
Watercraft filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, raising two issues concerning validity of the ex parte attachment and the sufficiency of fraud allegations in its Affidavit of Merit.

Whether the ex parte issuance of the preliminary attachment by the RTC in favor of Watercraft Venture Corporation was valid.
Whether the allegations in the Affidavit of Merit concerning fraud were sufficient to warrant the issuance of a preliminary writ of attachment.