Anda di halaman 1dari 12

#1

Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation, et. al. vs. Hon. Avelino Demetria, et. al.

Facts:

Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation (STMC) issued several checks to Luzon Spinning Milling
Incorporation (LSMI) for the purchase of kilos of yarn. However, the checks were dishonored due to insufficient
funds. LSMI demanded for the immediate payment of the obligation, but STMC failed and refused to heed the
demand. LSMI filed a complaint for collection of sum of money before the RTC of Lipa. The RTC issued a writ for
preliminary attachment against STMC's properties.

Apparently, LSMI has already previously instituted before the MTC of Lipa criminal cases against the Silangans
for violation of BP 22. SMTC filed a motion for the dismissal of the civil complaint before the RTC citing forum
shopping, and for the discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment. The RTC denied the motion as well as the
subsequent motion for reconsideration. The CA likewise dismissed the appeal via a Petition for Certiorari (Rule
65) for being deficient in form and substance.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC erred in denying the discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment

Ruling:

Yes. LSMI filed several criminal complaints against the officers of SMTC before the MTC prior the filing of the
civil case in the RTC. Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:

(b) The criminal action for violation for Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding
civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Thus, the civil action arising from the issuance of the bouncing checks is deemed instituted in the criminal cases
filed against the officers of STMC pending in the MTC.

Since the civil case is ordered dismissed, the writ of attachment issued in the said case must perforced be lifted.
A writ of preliminary attachment, a provisional remedy, is a collateral proceeding, permitted only in connection
with a regular action.

************
#2

Ricardo Cootuaco vs. CA, et. al.

Facts:

Cootuaco is a licensed cockpit operator of Gallera Lapu-Lapu in Camarines Norte. In 1979, he started
construction in another barangay where he planned to transfer the cockpit. Raul Luzurraga filed an application
with the PC Regional Commander for the renewal permit of Gallera Plaridel, a rival cockpit operated by his
brother Felix. The license was revoked because it was inside a residential district, which is a violation of the
Cockfighting Law of 1974.

Luzurraga's application for license renewal was denied. Subsequently, he filed a complaint for the annulment of
permit issued to Gallera Lapu-Lapu and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the operation
and new construction of the rival cockpit.

The CFI issued a TRO and denied Cootuaco's urgent motion to lift such order. Cootuaco filed a petition for
certiorari in the CA assailing the CFI's TRO. The CA denied the petition but lifted the TRO.

Issue:
Whether or not the erred in issuing the TRO

Ruling:

Yes. Rule 58, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure enumerates the three grounds for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction:

(a) The the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and that the whole or part of such relief consists in
restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of, or in the performance of an act or acts,
either for a limited period or perpetually;

(b) That the commission or continuance of some act complained of during the litigation or the non-
performance thereof would probably work injustice to the plaintiff; or

(c) That the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some
act, probably in violation of the plaintiff's rights respecting the subject of the action and tending to render the
judgment ineffectual.

Luzurraga had no right that needed to be protected or preserved by a writ of preliminary injunction during the
pendency of the case. He was not operating, and had no license to operate, a cockpit.

The status quo at the commencement of the complaint was that Cootuaco was duly licensed to operate, and was
operating Gallera Lapu-Lapu, and had been authorized to transfer its location. The writ disturbed that status quo
instead of preserving it.

Moreover, the issuance of the writ would irreparably damage Cootuaco because it would, for no lawful purpose,
deprive him of the use of his license to operate his cockpit.

************
#3

Purisimo Buyco vs. Nelson Baraquia

Facts:

Baraquia filed a complaint against the Buycos for the establishment of permanent right of way, injunction and
damages with preliminary injunction and TRO, to enjoin the latter from closing off a private road within their
property. The Buycos later died and were substituted by the petitioner and his brother. The RTC Iloilo granted the
application for preliminary injunction. In its decision, the RTC dismissed the complaint for Baraquia's failure to
establish his entitlement to the easement. It accordingly lifted the writ of preliminary injunction.

On the lifetime of the writ, the RTC held that the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court remains valid until
the decision of the CA annulling the same attains finality, and violation thereof constitutes indirect contempt
which, however, requires either a formal charge or a verified petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the lifting of a writ of preliminary injunction due to the dismissal of the complaint is immediately
executory, even if the dismissal of the complaint is pending appeal

Ruling:

Yes. A writ of preliminary injunction is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during
the pendency of the action. It is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the
main action. The sole object of the writ is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.

In the case at bar, the writ was granted by the RTC upon Baraquia's showing that he and his poultry business
would be injured by the closure of the subject road. After trial, however, the RTC found that Baraquia is not
entitled to the easement of right of way for failing to prove the essential requisites to such entitlement. Hence,
the writ was lifted. The appeal does not suspend the judgment. The general rule is that a temporary injunction
terminates automatically on the dismissal of the action.

************
#4

Gregorio Cruz vs. Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., et al.

Facts:

The Enciongs and Filemon Leonardo filed an action for forcible entry against Cruz wherein they obtained the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction after filing a bond posted by Manila Surety. The plaintiffs took
possession of the property and harvested the palay. The writ was later lifted after Cruz put up a counterbond,
but when possession of the land was returned to him, the palay have been harvested.

Cruz filed an action for certiorari before the CFI Rizal assailing the proceedings in the forcible entry case. Five
months after, Cruz initiated in the same court an action for damages against the Enciongs and Leonardo for the
losses he incurred due to his dispossession of the land. Manila Surety was made a party defendant. The CFI
ruled in favor of Cruz. However, the CA reversed the ruling on the ground that Cruz is barred from instituting the
action for damages for failing to press the claim in the forcible entry case.

Issue:

Whether or not a claim for damages from the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may be instituted in a
separate action

Ruling:

No. In Casimiro Japco vs. The City of Manila, the court ruled that:

A claim for damages suffered by reason of the issuance of a preliminary injunction must be presented in the
principal action, and judgment therefor must be included in the final judgment of the case. The remedy is
exclusive and by failing to file a motion for the determination of the damages on time and while the judgment is
still under the control of the court, the claimant loses his right to such damages.

The philosophy of the ruling implies that the court that had acted on the special proceeding which occasioned
the damages has the exclusive jurisdiction to assess them because of its control of the case. This tends to avoid
multiplicity of action.

Nevertheless, Cruz may press his claim for damages in the pending forcible entry case.

************
#5

Ofrecino Santos vs. CA, et. al.

Facts:

Santos filed a complaint for the recovery of sum of money against Teodulo Cruz and Valentin Garcia at CFI
Cotabato. He also secured a writ of preliminary attachment that levied a tractor in fact owned by another party,
the Philippine Reconstruction Corporation, Inc. (PRC). Santos amended the complaint to include PRC as
defendant but the complaint was later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Santos filed a similar action in the Justice
of Peace Court in Cotabato against PRC as sole defendant. The JPC ruled in favor of Santos.

Subsequently, PRC filed a complaint before CFI Manila for damages from the levy of its tractor under the writ of
preliminary attachment. The CFI rendered a decision in favor of PRC and ordered Santos to pay damages,
attorney's fees and cost of suit. Santos appealed to the CA contending that CFI Manila acted without jurisdiction,
the complaint for damages having arisen from a supposed wrongful attachment ordered by CFI Cotabato.
The CA sustained the CFI Manila ruling.

Issue:

Whether or not CFI Manila has jurisdiction over the complaint for damages emanating from a wrongful
attachment ordered by another court

Ruling:

Yes. Although an amended complaint was filed, no new writ of attachment was issued to cover Cruz and
Garcia's properties. The filing of such amended complaint did not cure the defect, since the seizure continued to
be in virtue of the original writ, none having been issued under the amended complaint.

The CFI correctly took cognizance of the complaint for damages because PRC sought damages, not on the
allegation that writ was illegally or wrongfully issued by CFI Cotabato, but on the theory that the writ was caused
by Santos to be levied upon PRC's tractor. PRC was not a party defendant in said action.

************
#6

Mangila vs. CA

Facts:

Mangila, a seafoods exporter, sought the freight forwarding services of Guina, a sole proprietress of a freight
forwarding business. After a successful first shipment, Mangila failed to pay Guina shipping charges amounting
to Php109,376.95 for three subsequent shipments. Guina filed an action for collection of money before RTC
Pasay City after Mangila's failure to settle her obligation. The sheriff serving the summons learned that Mangila
had left for Guam, thus Guina applied for a writ of preliminary attachment on the ground that her debtor has left
the country with intent to defraud her, the creditor. The writ was issued. The Notice of Levy with the Order,
Affidavit and Bond was served on Mangila's household help in San Fernando, Pampanga.

After a week, Mangila filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment without submitting herself to the
jurisdiction of the trial court. She contented that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over her person because
she had not been served a copy of the complaint and the summons. The trial court granted the motion upon
filing of a counterbond but did not rule on the question of jurisdiction and on the validity of the writ of preliminary
attachment.

Almost three months after the implementation of the writ, an alias summons was served on Mangila. Due to the
failure of Mangila's counsel to appear in the pre-trial, the RTC allowed Guina to present evidence ex-part. The
trial court ruled in favor of Guina and ordered Mangila to pay the shipping charges plus interest, attorney's fees
and costs of suit. The CA affirmed this decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment was improperly issued

Ruling:

Yes. The grant of a writ of preliminary 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.
In the instant case, the alias summons was served almost three months from the implementation of the writ. The
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant. The writ was improperly issued.
The writ 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 over her person because
the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service.

************
#7

Torres vs. Satsatin

Facts:

Nicanor Satsatin, through an SPA, negotiated the sale of the properties owned by the Torres siblings to Solar
Resources, Inc. Notwithstanding the receipt of the entire amount payment for Php35M, Satsatin only remitted
Php9M, leaving an unremitted balance of Php19M. The Torreses filed before the RTC a complaint for damages
against Satsatin and his children. The former also applied for an Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of
Attachment alleging that the respondents are about to depart the Philippines. The application was granted after
the Torreses filed a bond for Php7M.

A copy of the writ was served on the Satsatins and on the same day, the sheriff levied their properties., Two days
later, summons, together with the copy of the complain was served to the Satsatins.

The Satsatins filed a Motion to Discharge Writ of Attachment mainly on the ground that it was issued before the
summons were served to them. The motion was denied, thus the Satsatins filed before the CA a Petion for
Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and TRO (Rule 65). The CA granted the
petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the writ was improperly and irregularly issued

Ruling:

Yes. 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.

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.

In the instant case, the writ was implemented before the summons were served to the Satsatins. Thus, the trial
court has not acquired jurisdiction over their persons. Even if the writ was validly issued, it was improperly or
irregularly enforced, and therefore, cannot bind the Satsatins.

***Every bond should be accompanied by a clearance from the Supreme Court showing that the company
concerned is qualified to transact business which is valid only for thirty (30) days from the date of its issuance.
However, it is apparent that the Certification issued by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) at the time the
bond was issued would clearly show that the bonds offered by Western Guaranty Corporation may be accepted
only in the RTCs of the cities of Makati, Pasay, and Pasig. Therefore, the surety bond issued by the bonding
company should not have been accepted by the RTC of Dasmarias, Branch 90, since the certification secured
by the bonding company from the OCA at the time of the issuance of the bond certified that it may only be
accepted in the above-mentioned cities. Thus, the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of or in excess of jurisdiction when it issued the writ of attachment founded on the said bond.
************
#8

Spouses Salgado vs. CA

Facts:

The Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) filed an complaint for recovery of a sum of money with an
application for a writ of preliminary attachment against Spouses Salgado before CFI Rizal. The complaint sought
to enforce payment of Php1.3M promissory note executed by the Spouses Salgado in favor of PCIB. PCIB
alleged that the note has no sufficient security and that the spouses were disposing, concealing or removing
their properties with intent to defraud creditors. The application was granted; consequently, the sheriff levied 15
parcels of land of the Salgados.

The Salgados filed their answer alleging that the note sued upon was secured by several real estate mortgages.
They moved to quash the writ of preliminary attachment contending that PCIB made fraudulent
misrepresentation by deleting the words REM (real estate motgage) from the photocopy of the promissory note
thereby making it appear that it was unsecured. The motion was granted and the writ was lifted.
Meanwhile, in the main case for recovery of a sum of money, the trial court found that the note was sufficiently
secured by REM and that the note was not yet due and demandable.

Issue:

Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment was improperly or irregularly issued

Ruling:

Yes. Malice and bad faith attended the application by PCIB of a writ of attachment. To have a basis for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, in the xerox copy of the promissory note attached to the complaint
in the instant case, the existence of the REM was blotched out making it appear that the note was unsecured
when in truth and in fact it was fully secured by a series of valid and existing real estate mortgages duly
registered and annotated in the titles of the affected real properties in favor of the bank. Certainly blotching out
the existence of a fact is an act of bad faith. This act of bad faith was made more apparent when PCIB in its
complaint did not mention of such REM.

However, it is worth noting that proof of bad faith or malice in obtaining a writ of attachment need be proved only
in the claim for damages on account of the issuance of the writ.

************
#9

Quasha et. al. vs. Juan

Facts:

Filipinas Carriers, Filcar, filed a complaint for sum of money, enforcement of lien and damages with CFI Manila
against against AB Charles Thorburn & Co. for unpaid charter rent. Abdullah Baroom was impleaded as
defendant for being the agent of Charles Thorburn & Co. Filcar prayed, among others, that the defendants pay
the daily charter hire from the time they were in arrears until payment is made and that the Court allow the sale
of the cargoes to satisfy its claims.

Filcar filed an extra-parte motion to sell the goods subject of lien on the cargoes consistent with Clause 18 of the
Charter Party alleging that the goods subject of its lien were in danger of deteriorating and losing their market
value and if the goods were not sold immediately. Respondent Judge Celestino Juan granted the motion.
Petitioner law firm filed with respondent Judge a special appearance for defendant Baroom contesting the
Court's jurisdiction over Baroom's person and property and a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the Court had
not acquired jurisdiction over Baroom's 'person or property aboard the vessel. Petitioner also claimed that
Baroom is not an agent of Charles Thorburn since the cargoes belong to him, and denying the validity of
plaintiff's lien over the cargo. Petitioner reiterates the defense that plaintiff's action being in personam involving
defendant who is not a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, and there is no showing in the
records that the provisions of Section 17, Rule 14 in relation to Section 1, Rule 57, of the Rules of Court have
been complied with to convert the action in rem the Court had no jurisdiction over the case
In a nutshell, petitioner contends that respondent court did not acquire jurisdiction neither over any of the
defendants as they have not voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of respondent court, nor over the
res, since there had been no seizure of the property under a legal process, as by a writ of attachment or other
process of similar effect.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the res

Ruling:
Yes. Where a property is burdened by a lien, a writ of attachment is no longer necessary in order that jurisdiction
over the property may be obtained by the court.

An attachment proceeding is for the purpose of creating a lien on the property to serve as security for the
payment of the creditors' claim. Hence, where a lien already exists, as in this case a maritime lien, the same is
already equivalent to an attachment. Moreover, since the property subject of the action for the enforcement of
the maritime liens was already in the possession of private respondent, there is no need for seizure for the court
to obtain jurisdiction over the res.
Where a party in actual possession of the res subject to the lien is before the court, the res is within the
jurisdiction of the court for the enforcement of the lien A suit may be maintained to foreclose a lien on property
within the jurisdiction of the court, although some interest or claim therein is held by a non-resident.
************
#10

Gruenberg vs. CA

Facts:

Elda Flores, in her capacity as administratrix of the intestate estate of the late William Gruenberg, filed a
complaint before RTC Rizal for annulment of sale, recovery of ownership and possession of a real property
allegedly sold to defraud creditors. The complaint alleged that the property formed part of the conjugal
partnership of the Gruenberg spouses and that the sale to Albert Gruenberg, William's son, is in fraud of two
creditors who already filed suits for collection of unpaid collections. Flores is one of the creditors. She averred
that William owed her Php13,000.

Flores filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Attachment against the Gruenberg's properties to secure
the payment of obligation owing to her. The Gruenbergs filed their opposition stating that the action is one for
annulment of sale and recovery of the subject property and not for recovery of sum of money. They added that
the writ of preliminary attachment is not the proper remedy for the protection of the rights of the estate. The trial
court granted the application and issued the writ. On appeal, the CA denied the petition for certiorari with writ of
preliminary injunction.

Issue:
Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment is improvidently issued
Ruling:

Yes. The main case was for the annulment of a deed of sale executed by the late William Gruenberg. Sr., in
favor of Albert Gruenberg for the recovery of ownership and possession of the subject property. While Flores
filed the motion in her capacity as administratrix of the Gruenberg estate, the motion for a writ of attachment and
its supporting affidavit show that the attachment was intended to secure only her P13,000.00 claim against the
estate. This cannot be done.
The purpose behind the filing of the complaint was to recover a piece of property allegedly belonging to the
intestate estate of the deceased. Hence, any writ of attachment necessary to secure the judgment must be
related to the protection of the estate. A writ of attachment is a remedy ancillary to the principal proceeding. The
writ may not issue if only to protect the personal interests of Flores as a creditor of that estate.
Flores' remedy to recover the outstanding debt of the deceased is to follow the procedure in Rule 86 on claims
against an estate. As a matter of fact, if an administrator has a claim against an estate, Section 8 of Rule 86 calls
for the appointment of a special administrator to defend the estate against such claim.

************
#11

Sievert vs CA

Facts:

Albert Sievert received by mail a Petition for Issuance of a Preliminary Attachment filed with RTC Manila in
connection to a civil case. He had not previously received any summons and any copy of a complaint against
him in said case. His counsel went to the trial court for the limited purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the
court. Sievert also filed a written objection praying for the denied of the petition on the ground that since no
summons had been served upon him on the main case, no jurisdiction over his person had been acquired by the
trial court.

The trial court denied the objection. The CA also dismissed Sievert's Petition for Certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not a court which has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in the main case
may bind such defendant or his property by issuing a writ of preliminary attachment

Ruling:

No. A court which has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant cannot bind that defendant whether
in the main case or in any ancillary proceeding such as attachment proceedings. The service of a petition for
preliminary attachment without the prior or simultaneous service of summons and a copy of the complaint in the
main case does not confer jurisdiction upon the issuing court over the person of the defendant.

The prayer in a petition for a writ of preliminary attachment is embodied or incorporated in the main complaint
itself as one of the forms of relief sought in such complaint.Valid service of summons and a copy of the complaint
vest jurisdiction in the court over the defendant both for the purpose of the main case and for purposes of the
ancillary remedy of attachment and a court which has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant,
cannot bind the defendant whether in the main case or in any ancillary proceeding such as attachment
proceedings

Where, however, the petition for a writ of preliminary attachment is embodied in a discrete pleading, such petition
must be served either simultaneously with service of summons and a copy of the main complaint, or after
jurisdiction over the defendant has already been acquired by such service of summons. Notice of the separate
attachment petition is not notice of the main action. Put a little differently, jurisdiction whether ratione personae or
ratione materiae in an attachment proceeding is ancillary to jurisdiction ratione personae or ratione materiae in
the main action against the defendant.
If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant in the principal action, it
simply has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendant or his property.

************
#12

Mabanag vs. Gallemore

Facts:

An action to recover a sum of money, P735.18, was filed against non-resident Joseph Gallermore at CFI
Occidental Misamis. The amount was allegedly paid by Roman Mabanag to Gallemore for two parcels of land
whose sale was afterward annulled. Gallemore is a resident of California, USA, with no property in the
Philippines except an alleged debt owing him by a resident of Occidental Misamis. The debt was attached to the
extent of Mabanag's claim for the payment of which the action was brought.

Atty. Valeriano Kaamino, amicus curiae, filed a motion to dismiss and to set aside the attachment. The motion
was granted. The trial court opined that it has no jurisdiction to render judgment against Gallemore, a non-
resident.

Issue:

Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case by virtue of the attachment of defendant's credit

Ruling:

Yes. Section 2, Rule 5, of the Rules of Court provides:

If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action effects the personal
status of the plaintiff, or any property of the defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced
and tried in the province where the plaintiff resides or the property, or any portion thereof, is situated or found.

In Banco Espaol-Filipino vs. Palanca, and Slade Perkins vs. Dizon, the Court ruled that:
As a general rule, when the defendant is not residing and is not found in the Philippines, the Philippine
courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his
person, unless he voluntarily appears in court. But, when the action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff residing in the Philippines, or is intended to seize or dispose of any property, real or personal, of
the defendant, located in the Philippines, it may be validly tried by the Philippine courts, for then, they
have jurisdiction over the res, i.e., the personal status of the plaintiff or the property of the defendant,
and their jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential...
In attachment proceedings against a non-resident defendant where personal service on him is lacking, it is
elementary that the court must obtain jurisdiction of the property of the defendant. If no steps have been taken to
acquire jurisdiction of the defendant's person, and he has not appeared and answered or otherwise submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court, the court is without jurisdiction to render judgment until there has been a
lawful seizure of property owned by him within the jurisdiction of the court. (2 R. C. L., 800-804.).
Though no jurisdiction is obtained over the debtor's person, the case may proceed to judgment if there is
property in the custody of the court that can be applied to its satisfaction.

************
#13

Perkin vs. Dakila

Facts:
Perkin-Elmer Instruments Asia Pte Ltd. (PEIA), a foreign corporation, and Dakila Trading Corporatin, a Philippine
corporation, entered into a Distribution Agreement in which the latter shall order laboratory/analytical equipment
from the former or from Perkin-Elmer Instruments (Philippines) Corporation (PEIP), an affiliate of PEIA.
However, PEIA unilaterally terminated the Agreement prompting Dakila to file a complaint for collection of sum of
money and damages with prayer for issuance of a writ of attachment against PEIA and PEIP with RTC
Mandaluyong City. The prayer for the issuance of the writ was denied, as well as the subsequent motion for
reconsideration.
The RTC granted Dakila's Ex-Parte Motions for Issuance of Summons and for Leave of Court to serve summons
to PEIA in Singapore. The summons were received by Perkinelmer Asia, allegedly a separate and distinct entity
from PEIA. Dakila filed an Amended Complaint changing the name of PEIA to Perkinelmer Asia, claiming that
PEIA had become a sole proprietorship and changed to Perkinelmer Asia. Summons were then served to
Perkinelmer in Singapore.
Perkinelmer filed a Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss primarily on the ground that the RTC did not
acquire jurisdiction over it because there was never a valid extraterritorial service of summons. It contended that
the case involve collection of a sum of money and damages, an action in personam, as it deals with the personal
liability of the petitioner to the respondent by reason of the alleged unilateral termination by the former of the
Distribution Agreement.
The RTC denied the motion. The CA affirmed the RTC orders.

Issue:
Whether or not the action was converted from one in personam to one in quasi in rem by

Ruling:
No. The extraterritorial service of summons upon the petitioner produces no effect because it can only be done if
the action is in rem or quasi in rem. The instant case is for collection of sum of money and damages, an action in
personam requiring personal service of summons on Perkinselmer. Having failed to do so, the RTC did not
acquire jurisdiction over the person of Perkinelmer.
The mere allegation made by Dakila that the Perkinelmer had shares of stock within the Philippines was not
enough to convert the action from one in personam to one that was quasi in rem, for the latters purported
personal property was never attached.
The Amended Complaint for the issuance of a writ of attachment over Perkinelmers purported shares of stock in
PEIP located within the Philippines was denied by RTC, as well as the MR. The alleged personal property had
not been attached, hence the action remains an action in personam.

************
#14

Cuartero vs. CA

Facts:

Ricardo Cuartero filed a complaint before RTC Quezon City for a sum of money plus damages with a prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against Spouses Evangelista. The RTC granted ex-parte the
prayer for the writ, and subsequently issued the writ. The following day, a copy of the writ, the order granting the
same, the summons and the complaint were all simultaneously served upon the Spouses at their residence.
Immediately thereafter, the Sheriff levied the Evangelistas' properties not exempt from execution.

The Evangelistas' filed a motion to set aside the order and discharge the writ for having been irregularly and
improperly issued. The RTC denied the motion. However, the CA granted the petition for certiorari on the ground
that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the Evangelistas before it issued the assailed order and the writ.

Issue:
Whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required before the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment

Ruling:

No. A writ of preliminary attachment may issue even before summons is served upon the defendant. However,
the writ cannot bind and affect the defendant until jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained. Therefore, it
is required that when the proper officer commences implementation of the writ of attachment, service of
summons should be simultaneously made.

The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment practically 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 should first be obtained. However, once the implementation commences, it is required that 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.
When the writ of attachment was served on the spouses Evangelista, the summons and copy of the complaint
were also simultaneously served.

************
#15

KO Glass vs. Valenzuela

Facts:

Antonio Pinzon instituted an action against Kenneth Glass before CFI Rizal to recover a sum of money allegedly
to be the agreed rentals of his truck and the value of spare parts not returned to him. He prayed for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary attachment against Glass' property consisting of collectibles and payables with the
Philippine Geothermal, Inc., on the grounds that the defendant is a foreigner. The trial court issued the writ.
Glass moved to quash the writ on the ground that he never intended to leave the Philippines and even if he
does, Pinzon can not be prejudiced thereby because his claims are against a corporation which has sufficient
funds and property to satisfy his claim. Glass subsequently filed a bond to release the amount deposited by
Philippine Geothermal, Inc., but the court did not order the release.

Issue:
Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment was irregularly issued

Ruling:
Yes. First, there was no ground for the issuance of the writ. Pinzon did not allege that Glass "is a foreigner (who)
may, at any time, depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors including the plaintiff." He merely
stated that the Glass is a foreigner. here being no showing, much less an allegation, that the defendants are
about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud their creditor, or that they are non-resident aliens, the
attachment of their properties is not justified.
Second, the affidavit submitted by Pinzon does not comply with the Rules. He did not state therein that "the case
is one of those mentioned in Section 1 hereof; that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be
enforced by the action; and that the amount due to the applicant is as much as the sum for which the order
granted above all legal counter-claims." His failure to allege in the affidavit the requisites prescribed for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, renders the writ fatally defective.
Finally, it appears that the petitioner has filed a counterbond to answer for any judgment that may be rendered
against the defendant. Upon receipt of the counter-bond the respondent Judge should have discharged the
attachment pursuant to Section 12, Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court.