Case Summary (G.R. No. 164668)
Trial Court Quashes Attachment
Respondent manifested submission to jurisdiction and moved to quash the writ, proving approval of withdrawals and his permanent Philippine addresses. On December 24, 1997, the RTC found no intent to defraud and held that PCIB knew of respondent’s local residence and office. The court rescinded the writ for misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.
Appeals on Jurisdictional Findings
PCIB’s certiorari petition to the CA (SP No. 50748) and subsequent petitions to this Court challenged the quashal order but were dismissed for lack of abuse of discretion and procedural defects. The jurisdictional ruling—that respondent was a Philippine resident and PCIB acted in bad faith—became final and conclusive.
Claim for Damages Filed
On May 20, 1998, Alejandro sued on the attachment bond for P25 million, citing dishonored attorney’s fee checks and reputational harm. He presented his educational background, professional standing, and RCBC dishonor evidence. PCIB’s sole witness claimed good faith.
Trial Court Awards Damages
On August 30, 2000, the RTC awarded respondent P25 million against PCIB and its surety, Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. It ordered PCIB to pay the deficiency of P6,201,265.31.
Court of Appeals Modifies Damages
The CA upheld liability but reduced awards: P2 million nominal damages, P5 million moral damages, and P1 million attorney’s fees. On rehearing, it added P5 million exemplary damages, ordering satisfaction from the attachment bond.
Supreme Court Review and Conclusiveness of Prior Findings
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Court affirmed the conclusiveness of the jurisdictional findings on bad faith and residency. PCIB could not relitigate those issues and was estopped from invoking good faith in the original attachment application.
Liability for Wrongful Attachment
The Court held PCIB liable for wrongful attachment. Its bad faith—misrepresenting respondent’s residence to secure the writ—was previously established. Even if Rule 57(f) were correctly invoked, substituted service under Rule 14, Section 16 would have sufficed to acquire jurisdiction, making attachment unnecessary.
Alternative Ground Under Rule 57(f)
PCIB’s argument that respondent was a temporarily absent Philippine resident did not justify attachment. Substituted service at his Quezon City residence or Makati office would have conferred jurisdiction without property seizure. Attachment is an extraordinary remedy, strictly construed in favor of the debtor.
Awards of Damages and Their Modification
Actual
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 164668)
Facts of the Loan Transaction and Attachment Application
- On September 10, 1997, respondent executed a promissory note in favor of petitioner for ₱249,828,588.90 plus interest, representing consolidated yen loans granted in February and April 1997.
- Fluctuations in foreign exchange rates depleted the security deposits; petitioner asked respondent for additional collateral.
- Respondent claimed mishandling by the bank: it failed to close his account in April 1997 when the USD/JPY rate was ₱1 = JPY 127.50.
- Petitioner alleged under Rule 57, Section 1(e) and (f) of the Rules of Court that (a) respondent fraudulently withdrew unassigned deposits despite a verbal promise not to do so, and (b) respondent was not a Philippine resident.
- On October 24, 1997, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an ex parte writ of preliminary attachment after petitioner posted an ₱18,798,734.69 bond. Respondent’s bank deposits at RCBC were garnished the same day.
Quashal of the Writ and Early Appeals
- On October 27, 1997, respondent manifested voluntary submission to the RTC’s jurisdiction.
- Respondent moved to quash, arguing that withdrawals were approved by petitioner and that petitioner knew his Quezon City residence and Makati office, demonstrating his Filipino residence.
- On December 24, 1997, the RTC granted the motion, finding no fraudulent intent and concluding petitioner misrepresented respondent’s residence. The writ was discharged.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner sought certiorari relief from the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on May 10, 1999 for lack of abuse of discretion, and the Supreme Court denied further petitions and motions for reconsideration, rendering the RTC’s order final.
Damages Claim Before the RTC and Court of Appeals
- On May 20, 1998, respondent filed a claim for ₱25 million in damages against the attachment bo