Case Digest (G.R. No. 171124)
Facts:
Alejandro Ng Wee v. Manuel Tankiansee, G.R. No. 171124, February 13, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Alejandro Ng Wee placed a total of P210,595,991.62 with Westmont Investment Corporation (Wincorp). He later discovered that Wincorp had allegedly transferred his placements to the loan account of Power Merge Corporation, ultimately benefiting Luis Juan L. Virata, and that the transfers were part of an alleged scheme in which Wincorp officers and directors induced him to roll over placements. Ng Wee filed Civil Case No. 00-99006 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila on October 19, 2000 for damages; respondent Manuel Tankiansee, a Vice‑Chairman and Director of Wincorp, was impleaded among several defendants.
On October 26, 2000 the RTC, on the strength of Ng Wee’s October 12, 2000 affidavit, ordered a writ of preliminary attachment against all defendants’ nonexempt properties conditioned on a P50M bond; the writ issued on November 6, 2000. Respondent moved to discharge the attachment on December 22, 2000; other defendants filed similar motions. The RTC denied the motions in an Omnibus Order dated October 23, 2001 and denied the motions for reconsideration on October 14, 2002.
Co‑defendants Virata and UEM‑MARA challenged the RTC orders via Rule 65 certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 74610; the CA denied relief on August 21, 2003, and this Court in G.R. No. 162928 denied review on May 19, 2004 and finally on August 23, 2004. Respondent Tankiansee filed a second Motion to Discharge Attachment on September 30, 2004 raising, among other grounds, that (a) he did not attend the Wincorp board meetings approving the questioned transactions and (b) he and Pearlbank Securities, Inc. were themselves victims and had filed suits against Wincorp. The RTC denied that motion on January 6, 2005, reasoning that the matters were already passed upon or were affirmative defenses for the merits.
Respondent then filed a certiorari petition with the CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 90130). On September 14, 2005 the CA reversed the RTC, setting aside the orders and lifting the writ of preliminary attachment insofar as it affected respondent’s properties; its January 6, 2006 resolution denied reconsideration. Petitioner sought relief in this Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging (1) the CA’s giving due course to respondent’s certiorari petition, (2) the CA’s sustain...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to respondent’s certiorari petition?
- Was the writ of preliminary attachment issued against respondent’s properties improperly granted because the supporting affidavit failed to show specific acts of fraud by respondent as required under Section 1(d), Rule 5...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)