55. Mindanao Savings Loan v.

CA
172 SCRA 480
FACTS:
On September 10, 1986, private respondents filed in the Reional !rial Co"rt of #avao Cit$, a
%omplaint aainst defendants #&S& 'omes, (n%&, and its dire%tors )hereinafter referred to as #&S&
'omes, et al&* for +Res%ission of Contra%t and #amaes+ ,ith a pra$er for the iss"an%e of a ,rit
of preliminar$ atta%hment&
On September 28, 1986, -"de #inopol iss"ed an order rantin ex parte the appli%ation for a
,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment&
#& S& 'omes& (n%&, et al& and the #avao Savins . /oan Asso%iation )later renamed 0indanao
Savins . /oan Asso%iation, (n%& or +0S/A+* and 1ran%is%o 2illamor filed separate motions to
3"ash the ,rit of atta%hment& 4hen their motions ,ere denied b$ the Co"rt, #&S& 'omes, (n%&,
et al& offered a %o"nterbond in the amo"nt of 5l,762,861&41 per %ertifi%ate iss"ed b$ the /and
7an8 of the 5hilippines, a ban8in partner of petitioner 0S/A !he lo,er %o"rt a%%epted the
/and 7an8 Certifi%ate of & #eposit for 5l,762,861&41 as %o"nterbond and lifted the ,rit of
preliminar$ atta%hment on -"ne 6, 1987&
On -"l$ 29, 1987, 0S/A and 2illamor filed in the Co"rt of Appeals a petition for certiorari to
ann"l the order of atta%hment and the denial of their motion to 3"ash the same& !he CA
dismissed the petition&
ISSUES:
)a* 4hether or not a ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment ma$ be iss"ed e9:parte;
)b* 4hether or not ob<e%tions aainst the ,rit ma$ be invo8ed on%e a %o"nterbond is filed for its
liftin and dissol"tion&
HELD:
)a* YES. =o noti%e to the adverse part$ or hearin of the appli%ation is re3"ired& As a matter of
fa%t a hearin ,o"ld defeat the p"rpose of this provisional remed$& !he time ,hi%h s"%h a
hearin ,o"ld ta8e, %o"ld be eno"h to enable the defendant to abs%ond or dispose of his
propert$ before a ,rit of atta%hment iss"es& =evertheless, ,hile no hearin is re3"ired b$ the
R"les of Co"rt for the iss"an%e of an atta%hment )7elisle (nvestment . 1inan%e Co&, (n%& vs&
State (nvestment 'o"se, (n%&, 72927, -"ne >0, 1987? 1ilinvest Credit Corp& vs& Relova, 11 7
SCRA 420*, a motion to 3"ash the ,rit ma$ not be ranted ,itho"t +reasonable noti%e to the
appli%ant+ and onl$ +after hearin+ )Se%s& 12 and 1>, R"le 67, R"les of Co"rt*&
)b* NO. !he Co"rt of Appeals did not err in holdin that ob<e%tions to the impropriet$ or
irre"larit$ of the ,rit of atta%hment +ma$ no loner be invo8ed on%e a %o"nterbond is filed,+
,hen the ro"nd for the iss"an%e of the ,rit forms the %ore of the %omplaint&
(ndeed, after the defendant has obtained the dis%hare of the ,rit of atta%hment b$ filin a
%o"nterbond "nder Se%tion 12, R"le 67 of the R"les of Co"rt, he ma$ not file another motion
"nder Se%tion 1>, R"le 67 to 3"ash the ,rit for impropriet$ or irre"larit$ in iss"in it&
!he reason is simple& !he ,rit had alread$ been 3"ashed b$ filin a %o"nterbond, hen%e,
another motion to 3"ash it ,o"ld be pointless& 0oreover, as the Co"rt of Appeals %orre%tl$
observed, ,hen the ro"nd for the iss"an%e of the ,rit is also the %ore of the %omplaint, the
3"estion of ,hether the plaintiff ,as entitled to the ,rit %an onl$ be determined after, not before,
a f"ll:blo,n trial on the merits of the %ase& !his a%%ords ,ith o"r r"lin G.B. Inc. vs. Sanchez, 98
5hil& 886 that@ +!he merits of a main a%tion are not triable in a motion to dis%hare an
atta%hment, other,ise an appli%ant for the dissol"tion %o"ld for%e a trial on the merits of the
%ase on this motion&+
56. Benite vs. IAC
164 SCRA 41
FACTS:
On #e%ember 6, 1984, private respondent Casa 1ilipina #evelopment Corporation )Casa
1ilipina for brevit$* filed a %omplaint aainst herein petitioner 'elena !& 7eniteA for re%ission of
%ontra%t, pl"s damaes, ,ith a pra$er for preliminar$ atta%hment&
!he %omplaint alleed that Casa 1ilipina, represented b$ Renato 5& #raon, and defendant
7eniteA entered into a verbal %ontra%t ,hereb$ 7eniteA alleedl$ areed to "nderta8e to
p"r%haseB%onve$ land for Casa 1ilipina in the total val"e of One 0illion 5esos )51,000,000&00*
,ithin the period of fo"r )4* months from re%eipt of the total amo"nt&
!he fo"r:month period alleedl$ elapsed ,itho"t 7eniteA havin p"r%hased nor %onve$ed an$
real estate in the total val"e of One 0illion 5esos )51,000,000&00* in favor of Casa 1ilipina, b"t
instead 7eniteA %onverted the entr"sted mone$ for her o,n personal "se in violation of her
fid"%iar$ relationship ,ith plaintiff and that despite repeated demands for the ref"nd or ret"rn of
the aforementioned amo"nt, 7eniteA %hose to inore the same& 5ra$in for a ,rit of preliminar$
atta%hment, Casa 1ilipina s"bmitted ,ith its %omplaint, the affidavit of one =estor 5& 7orromeo,
the %orporate se%retar$ and a%tin treas"rer of the %orporation&
!he ,rit of atta%hment ,as ranted b$ respondent %o"rt e9parte in an order dated #e%ember
11, 1986&
On #e%ember 27, 1984, the Cler8 of Co"rt iss"ed a ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment, b$ virt"e of
,hi%h the respondent Sheriff served noti%es of arnishment to the 5hilippine 4omenCs
Dniversit$, !aft Aven"e, 0anila, the Dnlad #evelopment Reso"r%es Corporation and 7an8 of
the 5hilippine (slands, Dnlad Condomini"m, !aft Aven"e, 0anila, thereb$ arnishin the
deposits, shares of sto%8s, salaries and other personal propert$ of the petitioner& /i8e,ise on
-an"ar$ >0, 1984, petitioner ,as advised b$ the A%tin Reister of #eeds of E"eAon Cit$ that a
noti%e of lev$ ,as filed ,ith the ReistrarCs Offi%e affe%tin t,o par%els of prime land at
0ariposa Street, ,ith an areate area of 4,>04 s3"are meters ,hi%h are o,ned b$ and
reistered in the name of the petitioner&
Farlier on -an"ar$ 21, 1986, 7eniteA filed an ans,er ,ith %o"nter%laim and opposition to the
petition for iss"an%e of a ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment& On the same date, 7eniteA also filed an
Drent 0otion to #is%hare 4rit of 5reliminar$ Atta%hment "nder Se%tion 1>, R"le 67 of the
R"les of Co"rt, on the ro"nd that the same ,as improperl$ or irre"larl$ iss"ed&
(n s"pport of its "rent motion to dis%hare the ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment, petitioner
atta%hed thereto the affidavit of her te%hni%al assistant and attorne$:in:fa%t b$ the name of
2irinia Real, ,ho alleed& amon other thins, that she 8no,s for a fa%t that the transa%tion
bet,een 7eniteA and #raon for Casa 1ilipina, ,as one of p"r%hase and sale&
!he said motion ,as set for hearin on -an"ar$ 26, 1986 b"t the private respondent and its
%o"nsel failed to appear despite noti%e& Conse3"entl$, the motion ,as deemed s"bmitted for
resol"tion& On -an"ar$ >1, 1986, respondent Co"rt denied petitionerCs motion to dis%hare ,rit
of preliminar$ atta%hment&
ISSUES:
)a* 4hether a %o"nter:atta%hment bond is ne%essar$ and indispensable "nder the
%ir%"mstan%es before the s"b<e%t ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment ma$ be re%alled, 3"ashed
andBor dis%hared;
)b* 4hether or not the iss"e on the propriet$ of the iss"an%e of the s"b<e%t ,rit ma$ be resolved
,itho"t oin into the merits of the prin%ipal a%tion;
HELD:
)a* YES. A ,rit of atta%hment ma$ be dis%hared p"rs"ant to Se%tion 1>, R"le 67, ,itho"t the
ne%essit$ of filin a %ash deposit or %o"nterbond& !he provisions of the aforesaid se%tion rants
an arieved part$ relief from baseless and "n<"stifiable atta%hments pro%"red, amon others,
"pon false alleations, ,itho"t havin to file an$ %ash deposit or %o"nterbond&
)b* NO. (t ,as rave ab"se of dis%retion on the part of respondent -"de Rosario 2eloso to
den$ petitionerCs Drent 0otion to #is%hare 4rit of 5reliminar$ Atta%hment, ,itho"t %ond"%tin
a hearin and re3"irin the plaintiff to s"bstantiate its alleation of fra"d& =either %an
respondent -"de avoid de%idin the iss"e raised in petitionerCs "rent motion b$ r"lin that +the
iss"e %annot be determined ,itho"t add"%in eviden%e at the same time oin into the merits of
the %ase&+ 'avin iss"ed the ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment ex parte, it ,as in%"mbent on the
respondent %o"rt, "pon proper %hallene of its order, to determine ,hether or not the same ,as
improvidentl$ iss"ed& A preliminar$ atta%hment is a rioro"s remed$ ,hi%h e9poses the debtor
to h"miliation and anno$an%e, s"%h that it sho"ld not be ab"sed to %a"se "nne%essar$
pre<"di%e and, if ,ronf"ll$ iss"ed on the basis of false alleation, sho"ld at on%e be %orre%ted&
5!. Fi"invest C#edit vs. $e"ova
117 SCRA 420
FACTS:
On A""st 2, 1977, 1ilinvest Credit Corporation )hereinafter referred to as 1(/(=2FS!* filed a
%omplaint in the lo,er %o"rt aainst defendants Rall$e 0otor Co&, (n%& )hereinafter referred to as
RA//GF* and Fmesto SalaAar for the %olle%tion of a s"m of mone$ ,ith damaes and
preliminar$ ,rit of atta%hment&
5ra$in for a ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment, 1(/(=2FS! s"bmitted ,ith its %omplaint the affidavit
of one Hil 0ananha$a&
-"de -ore R& Co3"ia )no, -"sti%e of the Co"rt of Appeals*, then presidin -"de of the lo,er
%o"rt, ranted the pra$er for a ,rit of atta%hmen&
0ore than a $ear later, in an Drent 0otion dated #e%ember 11, 1978,
%
defendant SalaAar
pra$ed that the ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment iss"ed e9 parte and implemented solel$ aainst
his propert$ be re%alled andBor 3"ashed& 'e ar"ed that ,hen he sined the promissor$ note
and %hattel mortae on 0a$ 6, 1977 in favor of RA//GF, 1(/(=2FS! ,as not $et his %reditor
or obliee, therefore, he %o"ld not be said to have %ommitted fra"d ,hen he %ontra%ted the
obliation on 0a$ 6, 1977& SalaAar added that as the motor vehi%le ,hi%h ,as the ob<e%t of the
%hattel mortae and the %onsideration for the promissor$ note had admittedl$ not been
delivered to him b$ RA//GF, his rep"diation of the loan and mortae is more <"stifiable&
1(/(=2FS! filed an Opposition, b"t on 1ebr"ar$ 2, 1979, the %o"rt a quo, this time presided
over b$ herein respondent -"de, ordered the dissol"tion and settin aside of the ,rit of
preliminar$ atta%hment iss"ed on A""st 17, 1977 and the ret"rn to defendant SalaAar of all his
properties atta%hed b$ the Sheriff b$ virt"e of the said ,rit&
5etioner filed a 0otion for Re%onsideration, b"t it ,as denied&
ISSUES:
)a* 4hether or not the ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment ,as improperl$ or irre"larl$ iss"ed for
bein iss"ed ex parte ,itho"t noti%e to him and ,itho"t hearin&
)b* 4hether or not the ,rit of preliminar$ atta%hment alread$ enfor%ed b$ the Sheriff of 0anila
ma$ be dissolved ,itho"t SalaAarCs postin a %o"nter:replevin bond as re3"ired b$ R"le 67,
Se%tion 12&
HELD:
)a* NO. =othin in the R"les of Co"rt ma8es noti%e and hearin indispensable and mandator$
re3"isites for the iss"an%e of a ,rit of atta%hment& a ,rit of atta%hment ma$ be iss"ed ex parte&
Se%tions > and 4, R"le 67, merel$ re3"ire that an appli%ant for an order of atta%hment file an
affidavit and a bond@ the affidavit to be e9e%"ted b$ the appli%ant himself or some other person
,ho personall$ 8no,s the fa%ts and to sho, that )1* there is a s"ffi%ient %a"se of a%tion, )2* the
%ase is one of those mentioned in Se%tion 1 of R"le 67, )>* there is no other s"ffi%ient se%"rit$
for the %laim so"ht to be enfor%ed, and )4* the amo"nt %laimed in the a%tion is as m"%h as the
s"m for ,hi%h the order is ranted above all leal %o"nter%laims? and the bond to be +e9e%"ted
to the adverse part$ in an amo"nt fi9ed b$ the <"de, not e9%eedin the appli%antCs %laim,
%onditioned that the latter ,ill pa$ all the %osts ,hi%h ma$ be ad<"ded to the adverse part$ and
all damaes ,hi%h he ma$ s"stain b$ reason of the atta%hment, if the %o"rt shall finall$ ad<"de
that the appli%ant ,as not entitled thereto&
)b* YES. A ,rit of atta%hment ma$ be dis%hared ,itho"t the ne%essit$ of filin the %ash deposit
or %o"nter:bond re3"ired b$ Se%tion 12, R"le 67&
Se%& 1>, R"le 67 rants an arieved part$ relief from baseless and "n<"stifiable atta%hments
pro%"red, amon others, "pon false alleations, ,itho"t havin to file an$ %ash deposit or
%o"nter:bond& (n the instant %ase the order of atta%hment ,as ranted "pon the alleation of
petitioner, as plaintiff in the %o"rt belo,, that private respondent RA//GF, the defendants, had
%ommitted +fraud in %ontra%tin the debt or in%"rrin the obliation "pon ,hi%h the a%tion is
bro"ht,+ %overed b$ Se%tion i)d*, R"le 67, earlier 3"oted& S"bse3"ent to the iss"an%e of the
atta%hment order on A""st 17, 1977, private respondent filed in the lo,er %o"rt an +Drent
0otion for the Re%all and E"ashal of the 4rit of 5reliminar$ Atta%hment on )his propert$*+ dated
#e%ember 11, 1978 pre%isel$ "pon the assertion that there ,as +absol"tel$ no fraud on )his*
part+ in %ontra%tin the obliation s"ed "pon b$ petitioner& 5rivate respondent ,as in effe%t
%laimin that petitionerCs alleation of fra"d ,as false, that hen%e there ,as no ro"nd for
atta%hment, and that therefore the atta%hment order ,as +improperl$ or irre"larl$ iss"ed&+ !his
Co"rt ,as held that +)i*f the ro"nds "pon ,hi%h the atta%hment ,as iss"ed ,ere not tr"e &&&,
the defendant has his remed$ b$ immediatel$ presentin a motion for the dissol"tion of the
same& 4e find that private respondentCs abovementioned Drent 0otion ,as filed "nder option
1>, R"le 67&
!he last senten%e of the said provision, ho,ever, indi%ates that a hearing m"st be %ond"%ted b$
the <"de for the p"rpose of determinin ,hether or not there realit$ ,as a defe%t in the
iss"an%e of the atta%hment& !he 3"estion is@ At this hearin, on ,hom does the b"rden of proof
lie; Dnder the %ir%"mstan%es of the present %ase, 4e s"stain the r"lin of the %o"rt a quo in its
3"estioned Order dated 1ebr"ar$ 2, 1979 that it sho"ld be the plaintiff )atta%hin %reditor*, ,ho
sho"ld prove his alleation of fra"d& !his prono"n%ement finds s"pport in the first senten%e of
Se%tion 1, R"le 1>1, ,hi%h states that@ +Fa%h part$ m"st prove his o,n affirmative alleations&+
!he last part of the same provision also provides that@ +!he b"rden of proof lies on the part$
,ho ,o"ld be defeated if no eviden%e ,ere iven on either side&+ (t m"st be borne in mind that
in this <"risdi%tion, fra"d is never pres"med&