Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48756)
Background of the Case
In October 1977, Antonio D. Pinzon filed a complaint against Kenneth O. Glass to recover P37,190.00, which he claimed was overdue for truck rentals and missing spare parts at the termination of their lease agreement. In his complaint, he requested a writ of preliminary attachment on the basis that Kenneth O. Glass was a foreign national who may leave the country and that there was insufficient security for his claim.
Issuance of Writ of Attachment
The respondent Judge initially found Pinzon's complaint sufficient and issued a writ of preliminary attachment after Pinzon filed a bond. Subsequently, Kenneth O. Glass filed a motion to quash the attachment, arguing there was no cause of action against him personally, as any transaction was with the corporation and not with him as an individual. He asserted that the corporation had sufficient assets to satisfy any claims.
Amendment of Complaint
In response to the motion to quash, Pinzon amended his complaint to add K.O. Glass Construction Co., Inc. as a co-defendant, asserting that Glass controlled the corporation and was liable for the debts. Despite this amendment, the defendants persisted in their attempts to dissolve the writ of attachment, citing deficiencies in the affidavit supporting the attachment.
Court's Consideration of Grounds for Attachment
The respondent Judge's decision to maintain the writ of attachment was contested due to lack of grounds as specified in Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court. The grounds for issuing a writ include, among others, that the defendant is about to leave the Philippines to defraud creditors, or is a non-resident alien. The allegations made by Pinzon did not substantiate these grounds as required by the rules.
Flaws in the Affidavit Supporting Attachment
The affidavit submitted by Pinzon failed to meet the specific requirements for attachment outlined in Section 3, Rule 57. Notably, it did not adequately assert that there was no other sufficient security for the claim or that the case met any of the statutory grounds for issuing a preliminary attachment. This lack of necessary allegations rendered the writ of attachment issued against the defendant defective.
Counter-Bond and Entitlement to Release of Funds
The defendants also submitted a counter-bond equivalent to the amount sought by Pinzon, which should have warranted the discharge of the attachment under Section 12, Rule 57. The respondents did
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-48756)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by K.O. Glass Construction Co., Inc. against Judge Manuel Valenzuela and Antonio D. Pinzon.
- The petitioner seeks to annul and set aside a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 5902-P.
- The case pertains to a dispute over the recovery of P37,190.00 in rental payments and the return of spare parts related to a truck lease agreement.
Background of the Case
- On October 6, 1977, Antonio D. Pinzon initiated an action against Kenneth O. Glass to recover rental payments for his truck and unreturned spare parts.
- Pinzon filed a verified complaint requesting the issuance of an attachment against Glass's properties due to concerns about his ability to satisfy a potential judgment.
- The respondent Judge found the petition sufficient and ordered a writ of attachment upon Pinzon posting a bond.
Motion to Quash the Writ of Attachment
- On November 22, 1977, Kenneth O. Glass moved to quash the writ of attachment, arguing:
- There was no cause of action since the claims were against K.O. Glass Construction Co., Inc., a corporation.
- No grounds existed for attachment as he had no intention to leave the Philippines.
- The funds in question belonge