Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48756)
Petitioner’s Relief Sought
Petitioner sought certiorari to annul and set aside the writ of preliminary attachment issued in Civil Case No. 5902‑P, and for the release to the petitioner of the amount deposited with the Clerk of Court (the petition refers repeatedly to P37,190.00 as the deposited amount).
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
- October 6, 1977: Pinzon instituted the action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Kenneth O. Glass (later amended to include K.O. Glass Construction Co., Inc.).
- September 14, 1977: Date of plaintiff’s filing for writ of preliminary attachment (referenced in court orders).
- November 22, 1977: Defendant Kenneth O. Glass moved to quash the writ.
- January 26, 1978: Defendants filed a supplementary motion to discharge/dissolve the writ.
- June 19, 1978: Defendants filed a counter‑bond in the amount of P37,190.00 and moved for release of the deposited funds.
- Temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court in the course of the petition; final decision rendered by the Supreme Court on September 11, 1982.
Applicable Law
Primary legal source: Revised Rules of Court, Rule 57 (Sections 1, 3 and 12) governing writs of preliminary attachment, required affidavit contents, and discharge upon counter‑bond. Constitutional context: decision was rendered in 1982 and therefore arises under the then‑governing constitutional framework applicable at that time.
Factual and Procedural Background
Pinzon claimed a monetary obligation from Kenneth O. Glass for hauling services, monthly rental of an Isuzu cargo truck, and value of missing/destroyed spare parts, aggregating amounts reflected in his complaint (P32,290.00 alleged in the complaint, with writ sought for P37,190.00). Pinzon sought preliminary attachment on the asserted ground that the defendant was a foreigner and that there was no sufficient security for the claim; he also alleged that the defendant had receivables/collectibles from Philippine Geothermal, Inc. which might be disposed of. The trial judge found the petition sufficient in form and issued a writ of preliminary attachment upon the plaintiff’s filing of a bond. Defendants moved to quash and later filed a counter‑bond of P37,190.00, seeking release of the funds deposited with the Clerk, but the trial judge denied dissolution and did not release the deposit. Petitioner then sought certiorari relief before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether there was a legal ground to issue the writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1, Rule 57.
- Whether the affidavit in support of the attachment complied with Section 3, Rule 57.
- Whether the filing of a counter‑bond required discharge of the attachment and release of the deposited funds under Section 12, Rule 57.
Court’s Analysis — Grounds for Issuance of Attachment
Rule 57, Section 1 lists specific grounds upon which attachment may issue, including (a) when a defendant “is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditor” and (f) when a party “resides out of the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication.” The Supreme Court observed that Pinzon’s allegations did not assert that Kenneth O. Glass was about to depart with intent to defraud creditors, nor did they establish that the defendant was a nonresident or otherwise subject to service by publication. The complaint merely stated that the defendant was a foreigner and that he had assets in the Philippines; this, the Court held, does not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for attachment under Rule 57. Because the statutory grounds were not satisfactorily alleged, attachment was not justified.
Court’s Analysis — Affidavit Deficiencies under Section 3, Rule 57
Section 3 requires that the applicant’s affidavit explicitly state: (a) that a sufficient cause of action exists; (b) that the case is one of those enumerated in Section 1; (c) that there is no other sufficient security for the claim; and (d) that the amount due is as much as the sum for which the order is granted, above all legal counterclaims. The Court found that, while Pinzon’s affidavit asserted the existence of a cause of action, it failed to state that the case was one of the types mentioned in Section 1, failed to affirmatively declare that there was no other sufficient security for the claim, and did not allege that the claimed amount was above all legal counterclaims. The Court reaffirmed established precedent that omission of these requisites renders the writ fatally defective and characterizes the issuing judge’s action as an excess of jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis — Effect of Filing a Counter‑Bond (Section 12, Rule 57)
Section 12 provides that after an attachment order, the party whose property has been attached may obtain discharge of the attachment upon filing a cash deposit or executing a counter‑bond in an amount equal to the value of the attached property as determined by the judge; upon filing, the judge shall discharge the attachment and the deposit or counter‑bond stands in the place of the property. The defendants filed a counter‑bond in the amount of P37,190.00. The Supreme Court held that upon such filing the trial judge should have discharged the attachment and ordered release of the attached funds; refusal to do so amounted to an abuse of discretion.
Precedent and Legal Authorities Relied Upon
The decision applied Rule 57 (Sections 1, 3, 12) and cited jurisprudence holding that failure to comply with Rule 57’s affidavit requirements renders an attachment void and the issuing judge as acting in excess of jurisdiction (citing Guzman v. Catolico, 65 Phil. 257). The Court
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-48756)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the writ of preliminary attachment issued by respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 5902-P and for the release to the petitioner of the amount of P37,190.00 deposited with the Clerk of Court.
- Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order restraining the respondent Judge from further proceeding with the trial of the case pending resolution of the petition.
- The petition alleges grave abuse of discretion in issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment and in refusal to release the deposited funds after a counter-bond was filed.
- Dates of trial court orders at issue include orders of October 11, 1977; January 26, 1978; and February 3, 1978, which the Supreme Court reviewed insofar as they related to issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment.
Material Facts
- On October 6, 1977, Antonio D. Pinzon instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to recover from Kenneth O. Glass the sum of P37,190.00, alleged to be agreed rentals of plaintiff’s truck and the value of spare parts not returned upon termination of a lease.
- In his verified complaint Pinzon prayed for attachment against property of the defendant consisting of collectibles and payables with Philippine Geothermal, Inc., alleging that the defendant is a foreigner, that there is a sufficient cause of action, and that there is no sufficient security for his claim.
- The respondent Judge found the petition sufficient in form and substance and ordered issuance of a writ of attachment against the defendant’s properties upon plaintiff’s filing of a bond in the amount of P37,190.00.
- On November 22, 1977, defendant Kenneth O. Glass moved to quash the writ of attachment on several grounds including that the transactions were with K.O. Glass Construction Co., Inc., a Philippine corporation, that Glass did not intend to leave the Philippines with intent to defraud creditors, and that the garnished money belonged to the corporation and not to Glass personally.
- Plaintiff Pinzon amended his complaint to include K.O. Glass Construction Co., Inc. as co-defendant.
- On January 26, 1978, defendants filed a supplementary motion to discharge and/or dissolve the writ alleging insufficiency of the affidavit supporting the motion for attachment for failure to comply with Sec. 3, Rule 57 (failure to state that the claim is above all legal set-offs or counterclaims; failure to state no other sufficient security; failure to specify grounds in Sec. 1, Rule 57).
- The respondent Judge denied the motion and ordered Philippine Geothermal, Inc. to deliver and deposit P37,190.00 with the Clerk of Court to await judgment.
- On June 19, 1978, defendants filed a bond in the amount of P37,190.00 and requested release of the deposited amount; the respondent Judge did not order release.
- The petitioner (K.O. Glass Construction Co., Inc.) filed the present certiorari petition in the Supreme Court challenging the attachment and seeking release of the deposited funds.
Specific Pleadings, Allegations and Quotations from the Complaint and Amended Complaint
- Original complaint paragraph 15 (quoted): plaintiff averred under oath that defendant is a foreigner; that defendant has a valid obligation to plaintiff of P32,290.00 for (i) service charges for hauling construction materials, (ii) rentals for lease of plaintiff’s Isuzu Cargo truck, and (iii) cost of missing/destroyed spare parts; that there is no sufficient security for plaintiff’s claim; and that defendant has sufficient assets in the Philippines in the form of collectibles and payables due from Philippine Geothermal, Inc., which if not timely attached may be disposed of.
- Amended complaint paragraph 15 (quoted): plaintiff averred under oath that defendant GLASS is an American citizen who controls most, if not all, the affairs of defendant CORPORATION; that both defendants CORPORATION and GLASS owe plaintiff P32,290.00 for the same categories of claims; that there is no sufficient security for plaintiff’s claim; and that defendant CORPORATION has sufficient assets in the Philippines in the form of collectibles and payables due from Philippine Geothermal, Inc., which if not timely attached may be disposed of.
Motions and Defenses Raised by Defendants
- Motion to quash the writ of attachment arguing:
- No cause of action against Kenneth O. Glass personally because the transactions were entered into by and between plaintiff and K.O. Glass Construction Co., Inc., a Philippine corporation.
- No ground for issuance of preliminary attachment as Kenneth O. Glass never intended to leave the Philippines, and even if he did, plaintiff’s claims are against the corporation which has sufficient funds and property to satisfy the claim.
- The money being garnished belongs to K.O. Glass Construction Co., Inc. and not to Kenneth O. Glass personally.
- Supplementary motion to discharge/dissolve attachment contending insufficiency of the affidavit supporting the motion for attachment for failure to comply with Rule 57, Secs. 1 and 3 requisites.
Trial Court Orders and Actions
- Respondent Judge found the petition for attachment sufficient in form and substance and ordered issuance of the writ upon plaintiff’s filing of a bond for P37,190.00.
- After the supplementary motion to discharge was filed, the respondent Judge denied the motion and instructed Philippine Geothermal, Inc. to deliver and deposit P37,190.00 with the Clerk of Court to await judgment.
- Following the filing of a counter-bond by defendants in the amount of P37,190.00 on June 19, 1978, the respondent Judge did not order the release of the deposited funds.
Affidavit for Attachment — Contents and Defects Identified
- Section 3, Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court (q