G.R. No. 232455 - People vs. Ansano y Calleja

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232455)

Petitioner’s Claim and Relief Sought

Davao Light filed a verified complaint for recovery of money and damages that included an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment. The trial court granted the ex parte application, fixed an attachment bond, and the writ issued after the bond was posted. Summons, complaint, writ of attachment and bond were later served and the sheriff seized properties.

Procedural Chronology (material dates and events drawn from the record)

May 2, 1989: Complaint filed with ex parte application for preliminary attachment.
May 3, 1989: Trial judge issued order granting the ex parte application and fixed bond at P4,600,513.37.
May 11, 1989: Attachment bond posted; writ of attachment issued; Notice of Levy dated May 11, 1989.
May 12, 1989: Summons, complaint, writ of attachment, and attachment bond served on defendants; sheriff seized properties.
Sept. 6, 1989: Defendants moved to discharge the attachment for lack of jurisdiction at time of order/writ issuance.
Sept. 19, 1989: Trial court denied the motion to discharge.
May 4, 1990: Court of Appeals annulled the trial court’s orders and discharged the attachment.
Supreme Court review followed; disposition reinstated the trial court’s order and writ.

Issue Presented

Whether a writ of preliminary attachment may be validly issued ex parte before the trial court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by service of summons or voluntary submission.

Applicable Rules and Statutory Provisions

Rule 57 (preliminary attachment) of the Rules of Court, particularly Sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13.
Rule 14, Section 3 (service requirements).
Related provisional remedies and their procedural provisions in Rules 58–60.
Precedents cited in the decision (e.g., Sievert; Toledo v. Burgos; Filinvest Credit Corporation; Mindanao Savings & Loan Association v. Court of Appeals) as interpretive authority on Rule 57 and the propriety of ex parte relief.

Court’s Legal Framework and Preliminary Observations

The filing of a complaint commences an action and invokes the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the plaintiff. Jurisdiction over the defendant’s person, however, attaches only upon service of summons or voluntary submission. The Court emphasized the distinction between acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter/plaintiff and acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant, and recognized that a range of court acts routinely occur in the interval between filing and service (e.g., appointment of guardian ad litem, pauper litigation authority, amendments, authorization of publication, and dismissal by plaintiff).

Core Holding on Ex Parte Issuance of Writs of Preliminary Attachment

The Supreme Court held that a writ of preliminary attachment may be validly issued ex parte at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter, provided the requisites of Rule 57, Section 1 are satisfied. The rule expressly contemplates attachment “at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter,” and issuance ex parte is not per se illegal. Prior notice and hearing are not mandatory in every instance; the court may, in its discretion, require a hearing with notice but need not do so where affidavits and other required showing suffice.

Limits on Enforcement: Requirement of Service before Levy

Although issuance of an ex parte writ is permissible before service upon the defendant, the Court held that seizure (levy) under such a writ cannot be validly effected unless, before or contemporaneously with the levy, the defendant is served with (1) the summons and a copy of the complaint, (2) the writ of attachment and the order of attachment, (3) the applicant's affidavit and attachment bond, and (4) appointment of guardian ad litem if any. Service of these documents is indispensable (a) for acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant, and (b) as a matter of fairness to apprise the defendant and afford opportunity to prevent or contest the attachment (for example, by posting a counterbond).

Modes for Discharging or Preventing Attachment

The decision restated Rule 57’s mechanisms for challenging or lifting attachments:

Counterbond (Sections 5 and 12): A defendant may prevent levy or obtain discharge by giving a counterbond equal to the value of the property or sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand. This can be done before actual levy or after seizure. Counterbond is an efficient and established remedy.
Motion to discharge for irregular or improper issuance (Section 13): A defendant may move to discharge the attachment on affidavits alleging irregularity or impropriety; the attaching creditor may oppose by counter-affidavits or other evidence. The Court reiterated that the availability of these remedies reflects a policy balance: attachment is relatively easy to obtain ex parte to prevent dissipation of assets, but the defendant has available summary means to contest or neutralize the attachment.

Exception: When Dissolution by Motion Is Not Permitted

The Court reiterated prior doctrine that where attachment is based on grounds that were simultaneously the applicant’s substantive cause of action (e.g., embezzlement, fraud in incurring obligation, or other fiduciary violations enumerated in Section 1 of Rule 57), the defendant is not permitted to dissolve the attachment by offering to prove falsity of the factual averments in a motion under Section 13 because such an inquiry would amount to a premature trial on the merits.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 232455)

Facts (Undisputed Material Facts)

On May 2, 1989, Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. filed a verified complaint for recovery of a sum of money and damages against Queensland Hotel, Inc. (also styled “Queensland Hotel or Motel or Queensland Tourist Inn”) and Teodorico Adarna, docketed as Civil Case No. 19513-89; the complaint contained an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment.
On May 3, 1989, Judge Milagros C. Nartatez (Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, Davao City) issued an order granting the ex parte application and fixed the attachment bond at P4,600,513.37.
On May 11, 1989, after submission of the attachment bond by Davao Light, the writ of attachment issued.
On May 12, 1989, the summons and a copy of the complaint, together with the writ of attachment and a copy of the attachment bond, were served on defendants Queensland and Adarna; pursuant to the writ, the sheriff seized properties belonging to the defendants.
On September 6, 1989, Queensland and Adarna filed a motion to discharge the attachment for alleged lack of jurisdiction at the time the order of attachment (May 3, 1989) and the writ (May 11, 1989) were issued, asserting the trial court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the cause and over their persons.
On September 14, 1989, Davao Light filed an opposition to the motion to discharge attachment.
On September 19, 1989, the Trial Court issued an order denying the motion to discharge.
Queensland and Adarna challenged the September 19, 1989 order by a special civil action of certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which, on May 4, 1990, annulled the Trial Court’s orders (May 3, 1989; September 19, 1989; November 7, 1989) and declared null and void the Writ of Attachment dated May 11, 1989 and Notice of Levy on Preliminary Attachment dated May 11, 1989, ordering the attachment discharged.

Procedural History

Trial Court (Branch 8, RTC, Davao City) granted ex parte application for writ of preliminary attachment (May 3, 1989), issued writ (May 11, 1989), and the sheriff levied on attached property (May 12, 1989).
Defendants moved to discharge attachment (Sept. 6, 1989); motion denied by Trial Court (Sept. 19, 1989); denial of reconsideration (Nov. 7, 1989).
Court of Appeals (CA) reviewed via certiorari and annulled Trial Court’s orders and writ of attachment (Decision promulgated May 4, 1990).
Davao Light petitioned to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA decision; the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA, and reinstated the Trial Court’s order and writ of attachment (G.R. No. 93262, Nov. 29, 1991).

Issue Presented

Whether a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex parte against a defendant before the court has acquired jurisdiction over the defendant’s person by service of summons or by his voluntary submission to the court’s authority.

Holding (Supreme Court)

Yes. A writ of preliminary attachment may properly issue ex parte at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter, provided the court is satisfied that the requisites of Rule 57 have been fulfilled by the applicant.
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the order and writ of attachment issued by the RTC, Branch 8, Davao City, in Civil Case No. 19513-89 against Queensland and Adarna.
Costs were imposed against the private respondents.

Reasoning — Jurisdictional Principles and Timing

An action is commenced by the filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading; the filing invokes the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter and signifies the plaintiff’s submission to the court’s authority, thereby vesting jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s person.
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired by service of summons or other coercive process or by the defendant’s voluntary submission to the court’s authority.
There ordinarily exists an appreciable interval between filing of the complaint and service of summons; during this interval the court may properly and validly take certain actions (e.g., appointment of guardian ad litem; granting pauper litigant status; amendment of complaint as a matter of right; authorization of service by publication; dismissal by plaintiff) and may also act on provisional remedies.
Provisional remedies, including preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction, receivership, and replevin, may be validly applied for and granted even before the defendant is summoned or heard from.

Rule 57 and Statutory / Rules-Based Requirements

Rule 57 (preliminary attachment) contemplates grant of the remedy “at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter,” which includes the time after filing and before service of summons.
Section 1, Rule 57: defines preliminary attachment and lists grounds; the remedy is statutory and subject to strict construction but not prohibited before acquisition of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Section 3, Rule 57: requires the court be satisfied, upon affidavit of applicant (or a person with personal knowledge), that there is a sufficient cause of action; the case is one of those specified in Sec. 1; there is no other sufficient security for the claim; and the amount due or value of property is at least the sum for which the order is sought.
Section 4, Rule 57: prescribes posting of an attachment bond to adverse party, in an amount fixed by judge, conditioned to pay costs and damages if applicant not entitled to attachment.
Section 5, Rule 57: prescribes manner of attaching property and provides that levy is not required where defendant makes deposit with clerk/judge or gives a counterbond executed to the applicant in an amount sufficient to satisfy the demand or equal to the value of the property about to be attached.
Section 12, Rule 57: authorizes discharge of attachment upon giving counterbond equal to the value of the property attached as determined by the judge.
S