Anda di halaman 1dari 2

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT (NATURE STAGES OF ATTACHMENT AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE OF

SUMMONS)

TORRES VS SATSATIN

AS TO THE CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE OF SUMMONS:

It goes without saying that whatever be the acts done by the Court prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction
over the person of defendant x x x issuance of summons, order of attachment and writ of attachment x
x x these do not and cannot bind and affect the defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his
person is eventually obtained by the court, either by service on him of summons or other coercive
process or his voluntary submission to the courts authority. Hence, when the sheriff or other proper officer
commences implementation of the writ of attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant
not only a copy of the applicants affidavit and attachment bond, and of the order of attachment,
as explicitly required by Section 5 of Rule 57 , but also the summons addressed to said defendant
as well as a copy of the complaint x x x.
Thus, it is indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also
upon consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the complaint against him and the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor that prior or contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of
attachment, service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment, the
applicants affidavit and bond, and the order must be served upon him.

STAGES OF ATTACHMENT (THREE STAGES):


1.
2.
3.

first, the court issues the order granting the application;


second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and
third, the writ is implemented.
TAKE NOTE:
For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first
obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired
jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in
any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.

FACTS:
Siblings Torres (petitioners) each owned adjacent 20,000 square meters track of land in Dasmarias, Cavite. Nicanor
Satsatin, through petitioners mother Agripina Aledia, was able to convince the siblings to sell their property and
authorize him via SPA, to negotiate for its sale. Nicanor offered to sell the properties to Solar Resources, to which Solar
allegedly agreed to buy the three parcels of land plus the property of one Rustica Aledia for P35, 000,000. Petitioners
claimed that Solar has already paid the entire purchase price, however Nicanor only remitted P9, 000,000 out of the
P28, 000,000 sum they are entitled to and that Nicanor had acquired a house and lot and a car (which he registered in
the names of his children). Despite the repeated verbal and written demands, Nicanor failed to remit the balance
prompting the petitioners to file a complaint for sum of money against the family Satsatin.
Petitioners filed an Ex Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Attachment, alleging among other things, that
respondent was about to depart the country and that they are willing to post a bond fixed by court. After filing a Motion
for Deputation of Sheriff, which the RTC granted, it issued a Writ of Attachment (WOA) on November 15. On November
19, after serving a copy of the WOA upon the Satsatins, the sheriff levied their real and personal properties. On

November 21, the summons and copy of complaint was served upon the respondents. Respondents filed their answer
and a Motion to Discharge Writ of Attachment, claiming, among others, that: the bond was issued before the issuance
of WOA, the WOA was issued before the summons was received. Respondents posted a counter-bond for the lifting of
WOA, which was denied along with MR. Aggrieved, they filed with CA a Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and
Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and TRO under Rule 65. CA ruled in favor of respondents and denied petitioners
MR hence the petition for review on certiorari with the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ordering the lifting of the writ of attachment pursuant to
section 13, rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
RULING:
No. In the case at bar, the CA correctly found that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in approving the bond posted by petitioners despite the fact that not
all the requisites for its approval were complied with. In accepting a surety bond, it is necessary that all the requisites
for its approval are met; otherwise, the bond should be rejected.
A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where an action is
pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant therein, the same to be held thereafter by the
sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment that might be secured in the said action by the attaching
creditor against the defendant.
In the case at bar, the CA correctly found that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in approving the bond posted by petitioners despite the fact that not all the
requisites for its approval were complied with. In accepting a surety bond, it is necessary that all the requisites for its
approval are met; otherwise, the bond should be rejected.
Moreover, in provisional remedies, particularly that of preliminary attachment, the distinction between the issuance
and the implementation of the writ of attachment is of utmost importance to the validity of the writ. The distinction is
indispensably necessary to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired in order
to validly implement the writ of attachment upon his person.
In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three
stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application; second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the
order granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ
commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has
no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the
defendant.
At the time the trial court issued the writ of attachment on November 15, 2002, it can validly to do so since the motion
for its issuance can be filed at the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment. However,
at the time the writ was implemented, the trial court has not acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent
since no summons was yet served upon them. The proper officer should have previously or simultaneously with the
implementation of the writ of attachment, served a copy of the summons upon the respondents in order for the trial
court to have acquired jurisdiction upon them and for the writ to have binding effect. Consequently, even if the writ of
attachment was validly issued, it was improperly or irregularly enforced and, therefore, cannot bind and affect the
respondents.
Moreover, again assuming arguendo that the writ of attachment was validly issued, although the trial court later
acquired jurisdiction over the respondents by service of the summons upon them, such belated service of summons on
respondents cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot
enforce such a coercive process on respondents without first obtaining jurisdiction over their person. The preliminary
writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service of summons on the defendant whether by
personal service, substituted service or by publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case. The subsequent
service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction.
The petition is DENIED.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai