Case Summary (G.R. No. 125027)
Key Dates
– January–March 1988: Four shipments dispatched; charges totalling P109,376.95 remained unpaid.
– June 10, 1988: Civil Case No. 5875 filed in RTC Pasay for sum of money.
– September 27, 1988: RTC issued Writ of Preliminary Attachment.
– October 28, 1988: Writ implemented in Pampanga without prior or simultaneous service of summons.
– January 26, 1989: Alias summons finally served on Mangila.
– November 10, 1989: RTC rendered decision ordering Mangila to pay P109,376.95 plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs.
– December 15, 1995: CA affirmed RTC decision.
– May 20, 1996: CA denied Mangila’s motion for reconsideration.
– August 12, 2002: Supreme Court issued the challenged decision under the 1987 Constitution.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
– Rule 45, Rules of Court (certiorari)
– Rule 57, Rules of Court (preliminary attachment)
– Rule 14, Rules of Court (service of summons)
– Rule 4, Rules of Court (venue)
Factual and Procedural History
Mangila failed to pay freight charges for three shipments after a seven-day grace on the first. Despite demands, she remained unpaid. Guina filed for collection; initial service of summons failed because Mangila had moved and departed for Guam. Guina secured a preliminary attachment; writ was issued and implemented without prior or simultaneous service of summons. Mangila filed an urgent motion to discharge attachment, submitting a counter-bond. The trial court lifted the attachment but did not address jurisdiction or writ validity. Summons was later served, venue challenged, and Mangila was declared in default after missing pretrial calls. The RTC granted Guina’s ex parte evidence and entered judgment; execution pending appeal was denied. CA affirmed. Mangila elevated the case by certiorari.
Issues Presented
- Whether the writ of attachment was improperly issued and served.
- Whether there was a valid declaration of default.
- Whether venue was improperly laid in Pasay.
- Whether Mangila’s monetary obligation and attorney’s fees award were erroneous.
Validity of Writ of Attachment
The Court reaffirmed that preliminary attachment involves three stages—order, issuance, and implementation—and that jurisdiction over the defendant must be acquired before or simultaneously with implementation. Citing Davao Light & Power Co. v. CA and Cuartero v. CA, the Court held that service of summons must accompany the initial levy. Here, the writ was implemented October 28, 1988, but summons was served only January 26, 1989—months later. No substituted service or application for publication under Rule 14 was attempted. The belated service could not retroactively confer jurisdiction. The trial court thus lacked authority to enforce the attachment.
Improper Venue
Venue stipulations in a contract are not exclusive absent clear language limiting all fora. The invoice’s Makati venue clause was not restrictive. Under Rule 4, venue lies where the defendant resides or m
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 125027)
Facts
- Anita Mangila (“petitioner”) is an exporter of seafoods doing business as Seafoods Products; Loreta Guina (“private respondent”) is president and general manager of Air Swift International, a sole proprietorship freight forwarder.
- In January 1988, petitioner engaged respondent to ship crabs, prawns, and assorted fishes to Guam, agreeing to pay cash on delivery; respondent’s invoice included an 18% per annum interest clause on overdue accounts and a 25% attorney’s fees provision plus costs if suit became necessary.
- Petitioner requested seven days’ credit for the first shipment but defaulted on shipping charges totaling ₱109,376.95 for shipments of March 17, 24, and 31, 1988; despite repeated demands, she did not pay.
Trial Court Proceedings and Decision
- On June 10, 1988, respondent filed Civil Case No. 5875 in the RTC of Pasay City for sum of money; attempts to serve summons failed as petitioner had left for Guam.
- On September 13, 1988, respondent moved for preliminary attachment alleging intent to defraud; on September 26 the court ordered attachment and issued the writ on September 27, 1988.
- Implementation occurred on October 28, 1988 in San Fernando, Pampanga, without prior or simultaneous service of summons; alias summons issued January 19, 1989 and served on January 26, 1989.
- Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment (Nov 7, 1988) arguing lack of personal jurisdiction; the court granted discharge upon counter‐bond on January 13, 1989 without addressing jurisdiction or writ validity.
- Petitioner moved to dismiss for improper venue (Feb 9, 1989) based on an invoice clause stipulating Makati as venue; the court accepted respondent’s affidavit of inadvertence, denied dismissal, and set pre‐trial.
- At pre‐trial on August 24, 1989, petitioner’s counsel arrived late; the court terminated pre‐trial, declared petiti