PCIB vs Alejandro G.R. No.

175587 Facts: Petitioner filed against respondent Alejandro a complaint for sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. Said complaint alleged that respondent, a resident of Hong Kong, executed in favor of petitioner a promissory note obligating himself to pay P249,828,588.90 plus interest. In view of the fluctuations in the foreign exchange rates which resulted in the insufficiency of the deposits assigned by respondent as security for the loan, petitioner requested the latter to put up additional security for the loan. In praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1 paragraphs (e) and (f) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, petitioner alleged that (1) respondent fraudulently withdrew his unassigned deposits notwithstanding his verbal promise to PCIB Assistant Vice President Corazon B. Nepomuceno not to withdraw the same prior to their assignment as security for the loan; and (2) that respondent is not a resident of the Philippines. The trial court granted the application and issued the writ ex parte. Subsequently, respondent filed a motion to quash he writ contending that the withdrawal of his unassigned deposits was not fraudulent as it was approved by petitioner. He also alleged that petitioner knew that he maintains a permanent residence and an office address here in the Philippines. In both addresses, petitioner regularly communicated with him through its representatives. The trial court issued an order quashing the writ. With the denial of petitioners motion for reconsideration, it elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the case. Issue: Whether the issuance of the writ of attachment was proper. Held: No. In the instant case, it must be stressed that the writ was issued by the trial court mainly on the representation of petitioner that respondent is not a resident of the Philippines. Obviously, the trial courts issuance of the writ was for the sole purpose of acquiring jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Had the allegations in the complaint disclosed that respondent has a residence in Quezon City and an office in Makati City, the trial court, if only for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction, could have served summons by substituted service on the said addresses, instead of attaching the property of the defendant. The rules on the application of a writ of attachment must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant. For attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and summary in nature; it is a rigorous remedy which exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance. It is clear from the foregoing that even on the allegation that respondent is a resident temporarily out of the Philippines, petitioner is still not entitled to a writ of attachment because the trial court could acquire jurisdiction over the case by substituted service instead of attaching the property of the defendant.