Case Summary (G.R. No. 215585)
Procedural History
On September 10, 1986, private respondents initiated Civil Case No. 18263 against D.S. Homes, Inc. and its directors, seeking rescission of contract and damages, alongside a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The application for the attachment was granted ex parte on September 28, 1986, by Judge Dinopol. The private respondents later amended their complaint to include the petitioners and received an amended order of attachment on November 5, 1986. Subsequent motions to quash the attachment filed by D.S. Homes, Inc. and the petitioners were denied. In response, D.S. Homes offered a counterbond, which prompted the court to lift the preliminary attachment on June 5, 1987.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On July 29, 1987, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari to annul the order of attachment, claiming the trial court acted beyond its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on May 5, 1988, asserting that objections to the writ can no longer be raised once a counterbond is filed for its dissolution. The appellate court maintained that trial on the merits was necessary, as the propriety of the writ was intrinsically linked to the core issues of the complaint.
Legal Standards for Preliminary Attachment
The decision outlines the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment under Section 3, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, which do not require advance notice to the adverse party. Specifically, the affidavit and bond of the applicant must demonstrate a sufficient cause of action. The ruling emphasizes that no hearing is mandated for the issuance of a preliminary attachment, given its purpose as a provisional remedy.
Nature of Counterbond and Attachment
The ruling further clarifies the implications of filing a counterbond. Once a defendant has secured the lifting of an attachment through a counterbond, any subsequent motion to quash based on the irregularity of the original writ is unnecessary, as the counterbond effectively renders the writ moot. The case determined that issues related to the entitlement for the attachment can only be resolved through a full trial on the merits, rather than through motions challenging the attachment's propriety.
Conditions for Discharge of Attachment
Two modes exist to discharge a preliminary attachment: submission of a counterbond or proving irregular issuance. The judgment indicates that choosing one method does not waive the right to pursue the other should the circumstances allow. The principles regarding the discharge of attachments maintain that a defendant cannot question the propriety of the attachment in a motion if the grounds for the attachment also amount to the plaintiff’s cause of action, as this would divert
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 215585)
Case Background
- On September 10, 1986, private respondents filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City against D.S. Homes, Inc. and its directors, seeking "Rescission of Contract and Damages" and requesting a writ of preliminary attachment, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 18263.
- The trial court, presided by Judge Dinopol, granted an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment on September 28, 1986.
- The private respondents later amended their complaint on September 22, 1986, and filed a second amended complaint on October 10, 1986, which included the petitioners, Davao Savings & Loan Association, Inc. (now Mindanao Savings & Loan Association, Inc.) and its president, Francisco Villamor, while dropping Eugenio M. De los Santos.
- On November 5, 1986, Judge Dinopol issued an amended order of attachment against all defendants named in the second amended complaint, including the petitioners.
Motions Filed and Court Proceedings
- D.S. Homes, Inc., et al. and the petitioners filed separate motions to quash the writ of attachment, which were denied.
- D.S. Homes, Inc., et al. subsequently offered a counterbond of P1,752,861.41, which was accepted by the court, leading to the lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment on June 5, 1987.
- On July 29, 1987, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 12467) to annul the attachment order and the denial of their motion to quash.