MARIANO T. NASSER vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON.

MALCOLM SARMIENTO, in his

capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch I, AURORA
RIVERA CANLAS, PATERNO R. CANLAS, and TOMAS CENTILLAS

Facts:
1. Petitioner Nasser was a lessee in several haciendas in Davao Oriental, owned by the Estate of
Don Amadeo Matute Olave.
2. Matias Matute, co-administrator of the Olave Estate executed (1)an original Contract of Lease
dated Feb10,1965 expiring on Aug10,1970 and (2)a Supplemental Contract for a period of 5
years after the expiration of the original contract. Both contracts are in faor of Petitioner
Nasser.
3. Apr25,1966 Pet. Nasser executed 3 promissory notes, in favor of Matute, amounting to
819,000.
4. Feb7,1967 Matute assigned, sold, transferred and set over to Respondent Aurora Rivera
Canlas, all above described promissory notes with express conformity of Pet. Nasser.
5. Pet. Nasser managed to buy the hereditary shares of the Matute heirs for an amount of
660,000.
6. Out of the promissory notes, pet. Nasser had a balance of 697,016.55 which was unpaid.
7. Respondent Aurora filed a complaint for sum of money with Application for Writ of Preliminary
Attachment before the CFI - Pampanga. It was granted upon a bond of 20,000 put up by
respondents.
8. Sheriff of Manila issued a notice of garnishment against Nasser.
9. Upon the motion by Canlas spouses, Respondent Judge Sarmiento issued an order executing
the Order of attachment until the balance of 697,016 is realized.
10.Chief of Police attached the petitioners propert except for the leasehold rights which were
exempt from the execution.
11.Pet. Nasser filed an urgent Motion to Dismiss, the ground of which is Improper Venue, and
another motion which is Motion to Dissolve the Order of Attachment on the ground that it was
improperly issued. Respondent Canlas spouses opposed the motions. Both motions of Nasser
were denied by Respondent Judge. Instead of an answer, pet. Nasser filed an urgent Motion
for Reconsideration.
12.Respondent Judge declared Pet. Nasser in default, allowing the Respondent Canlas spouses to
present evidence ex-parte. Next day, respondent judge ordered judgment in favor of the
Canlas spouses and payment of Pet. Nasser of the sum of money plus interest.
13.Respondent Judge motu proprio set aside the order of default, appearing Nasser having filed
an Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Lift the Order of Default.
14.Pet. Nasser filed in the lower court another urgent motion setting aside and revoking the order
of Respondent Judge on the earlier decision. Resp. Canlas spouses opposed. Pet. Nasser filed a
reply
15.Respondent Judge issued two orders (1)holding in abeyance the resolution of the motion
relieving the Chief of Police (2) denying the MR of Petition Nasser.
16.Petitioner Nasser filed a petition for certiorari directly to SC. Sc remanded the case to the CA.
17.CA denied Nassers petition.
18.Meanwhile, during an earlier date, Pet. Nasser filed in a co-equal court of Davao Oriental a
complaint for injunction against Chiefs of Police of Generoso and San Isidro.
19.Chiefs of Police filed an opposition on the ground that the CFI- Davao Oriental lacks
jurisdiction and the complaint has no cause of action.
20.On the same court, Pet. Nasser filed an annulment of promissory notes against the Canlas
spouses. Nasser also filed a supplemental complaint with Urgent Motion for a grant of a writ of
Preliminary Injunction Ex-parte and Urgent Motion for Restraining Order. Both motions were
granted by the CFI- Davao Oriental Judge Bullecer.
21.Canlas spouses and Chiefs of Police filed a petition for certiorari before the CA against Judge
Bullecer. CA ruled in favor of Canlas spouses and Chiefs of Police.
22.Several alleged to be dummies of Nasser filed cases before CFI- Davao Oriental Judge Bullecer
against respondents.
 23.CA issued an order enjoining the CFI-Davao Oriental from entertaining cases concerning the
impeding and obstruction of CFI Pampangas writ of preliminary injunction.
24.CA rendered decision making permanent the CFI Pampangas writ of preliminary injunction.
25.Petitioner Nasser filed MR. Denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WON the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the CFI Pampanga (in favor of Canlas)
may be enjoined in the decision of CFI Davao Oriental (in favor of Nasser) primary issue of the
case

WON the appointment of the Chief of Police of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental as Special Sheriff
to serve and implement the Order of Attachment was erroneous issue in relation to Rule 57

HELD:
No.

It is doctrinal that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgment or order of
another court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction (Ngo Bun Tiong v. Sayo, 163 SCRA 237 [1988];
Investors Finance Corporation v. Ebarle, 163 SCRA 60 [1988]; Municipality of Malolos v. Libangang
Malolos, Inc., 164 SCRA 290 [1988])

No.

It is likewise evident that respondent judge did not err in deputizing the Chief of Police of Governor
Generoso, as special sheriff under Section 2, Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court where the former
is expressly authorized to require not only the sheriff but also other officers of the province or the
sheriffs or other proper officers of different provinces in this case, the Chief of Police of Governor
Generoso, to attach all the properties of the party against whom it may be issued within the province
not exempt from execution.

Finally, it is settled that a verified statement incorporated in the complaint without a separate
affidavit is sufficient and valid to obtain the attachment (Tolentino v. Carla, et al., 66 Phil. 140-143).
Thus, under the same ruling, the verified complaint in the case at bar entitled "Application for a Writ
of Preliminary Attachment" which specifically stated that to avoid redundancy and repetition, the
affidavit of the plaintiffs as required under Section 3, Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court is
dispensed with, as the matters to be treated and contained therein are already incorporated and
made part of the complaint, duly verified by them, has undoubtedly substantially complied with the
requirements of the Rules and the court to which the application for the attachment was filed has
jurisdiction to issue the writ prayed for (Central Capiz v. Salas, 43 Phil., 30 [1922]).

Petition Dismissed for lack of merit. CA decision is affirmed.