Anda di halaman 1dari 1

G.R. No.

L-67715 July 11, 1986

WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE and THE HON. FELIX V. BARBERS, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila,
Branch XXXIII, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
ELAINE M. DE LENCQUESAING and HERVE DE LENCQUESAING, respondents-appellees.

Facts: The petition is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the IAC which declared null and void the
order of Judge Barbers in case filed by the Miailhe’s granting petitioner’s application for the issuance of a WOPA;
and the denial of the motion to lift the said attachment. William Miailhe and his sisters and mother Mme.

Victoria de Miailhe are co-owners of several registered real properties. By common consent of the co-
owners, William has been administering the properties since 1960. Unable to secure an out-of-court partition due
to the unwillingness of Elaine Mailhe de Lenquesaing, the other co-owners filed in the CFI an action for partition.
While the account of William as administrator was still being examined, Elaine filed a motion praying that the
sum of P203,167.36, which allegedly appeared as cash balance in her favor, be ordered delivered to her by
petitioner William Mialhe. Against the opposition of the co-owners, Judge Pedro Ramirez granted the motion
which is now subject of a certiorari proceeding in the IAC. Meanwhile, Elaine filed a criminal complaint for
estafa against William Alain, alleging that the latter had misappropriated considerable amounts by his
administration which should have been turned over to her as share in the net rentals. William Alain then filed a
verified complaint for Damages against Elaine amounting to P2 M and attorney’s fees of P250,000 sustained by
him by reason of the estafa case allegedly intended to embarrass him, besmirching his reputation as the Honorary
Consul of the French Republic in the City of Bordeaux, France.

The petitioner also prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment (WOPA) of the properties
of the respondent consisting of the 1/6 undivided interest in certain real properties in Manila on the ground that
Elaine is a non-resident of the Philippines, pursuant to Section 1(f), Rule 57 in relation to Section 17, Rule 14 of
the RROC. Judge Barbers granted the application for preliminary attachment upon the filing of bond by the
petitioner in the amount of P2M. Respondent filed a motion to lift the writ of attachment on the ground that the
complaint did not comply with the provisions of Sec. 3 of Rule 57 of thee ROC and that the petitioner’s claim
was for unliquidated damages. The motion to lift was denied, respondent filed with the IAC a special action for
certiorari alleging that Judge Barbers acted with GAD. IAC issued a decision declaring the WOPA null and void.
Petitioner filed a MFR but was denied, hence, the petition on appeal by certiorari before the SC.

Issue: WON the IAC erred in construing that Sec. 1(f), Rule 57 of the ROC is applicable only in case of claim
for liquidated damages.

Held: Yes. The SC agreed with the IAC. Section 1(f), Rule 57 of the ROC provides: f. In an action against a
party who resides out of the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication. While it is true
that from the aforequoted attachment may issue in an action against a party who resides out of the Philippines,
irrespective of the nature of the action or suit, and while it is true that in the case of Cu Unjieng vs. Albert, it was
held that each of the 6 grounds treated ante is independent of the others, still it is imperative that the amount
sought be liquidated.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai