FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS, INC., vs. BETONVAL READY CONCRETE INC.

and
STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO., INC.,
G.R. No. 1707!
A"#"s$ %!, %00&
FACTS: On separate dates, petitioner FSI and respondent Betonval executed three contracts for the
delivery of ready mixed concrete by Betonval to FSI. Betonval delivered the ready mixed concrete
pursuant to the contracts but FSI failed to pay its outstanding balance. As an accommodation to FSI,
Betonval extended the seven day credit period to ! days.
Betonval demanded from FSI its balance. Betonval informed FSI that further defaults "ould leave it no
other choice but to impose the stipulated interest for late payments and ta#e appropriate legal action to
protect its interest. $hile maintaining that it "as still verifying the correctness of Betonval%s claims,
FSI sent Betonval a proposed schedule of payments devised "ith a liability for late payments fixed at
&' p.a.
(hereafter, FSI paid Betonval according to the terms of its proposed schedule of payments. It "as able
to reduce its debt, inclusive of the annual interest. )evertheless, it failed to fully settle its obligation.
Betonval thereafter filed an action for sum of money and damages in the *(+. It also applied for the
issuance of a "rit of preliminary attachment alleging that FSI employed fraud "hen it contracted "ith
Betonval and that it "as disposing of its assets in fraud of its creditors.
FSI denied Betonval%s allegations and moved for the dismissal of the complaint. FSI also filed a
counterclaim and prayed for A,, -,, ., and AF.
(he *(+ issued a "rit of preliminary attachment and approved the /!00,000 bond of Stronghold.
(he *(+ ruled for Betonval. 1o"ever, it a"arded compensatory damages to FSI on the ground that
the attachment of its properties "as improper.
FSI and Stronghold separately filed -*s "hile Betonval filed a motion for clarification and
reconsideration. (he *(+ denied both -*s.. All parties appealed to the +A. 1o"ever, only the
respective appeals of Betonval and Stronghold "ere given due course because FSI%s appeal "as
dismissed for nonpayment of the appellate doc#et fees.
the +A upheld the *(+ order "ith modification. FSI%s -* "as denied, hence this petition for revie"
on certiorari
ISSUE:
$O) (1.*. $AS I-/*O/.* A((A+1-.)( OF FSI%S /*O/.*(I.S
$O) /.(I(IO).* IS .)(I(2., (O (1. A-O3)( OF A+(3A2 ,A-A4.S /*A5., FO*
HELD: $1.*.FO*., the petition is hereby ,.)I.,.
5.S6 Betonval%s application for the issuance of the "rit of preliminary attachment "as based on
Section 78d9 and 8e9, *ule !: of the *O+. 1o"ever, the +A affirmed the *(+%s factual findings that
there "as improper attachment of FSI%s properties.. 1o"ever, these are factual matters that have been
duly passed upon by the *(+ and the +A and "hich are inappropriate in a petition for revie".
-oreover, "e agree "ith the *(+ and the +A that FSI%s properties "ere improperly attached. Betonval
"as not able to sufficiently sho" the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because fraudulent
intent cannot be inferred from FSI%s mere nonpayment of the debt or failure to comply "ith its
obligation. In )g $ee v. (an#iansee, "e held that the applicant must be able to demonstrate that the
debtor intended to defraud the creditor. Furthermore:
(he fraud must relate to the execution of the agreement and must have been the reason "hich induced
the other party into giving consent "hich he "ould not have other"ise given. (o constitute a ground for
attachment in Section 7 8d9, *ule !: of the *O+, fraud should be committed upon contracting the
obligation sued upon. A debt is fraudulently contracted if at the time of contracting it the debtor has a
preconceived plan or intention not to pay, as it is in this case. Fraud is a state of mind and need not be
proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the circumstances attendant in each case.
In other "ords, mere failure to pay its debt is, of and by itself, not enough to ;ustify an attachment of
the debtor%s properties. A fraudulent intention not to pay 8or not to comply "ith the obligation9 must
be present.
)O6 In its bid for a bigger a"ard for actual damages it allegedly suffered from the "rongful
attachment of its properties, FSI enumerates the standby costs of e<uipment and manpo"er standby
costs it allegedly lost. $e cannot grant FSI%s prayer. FSI did not pursue its appeal to the +A as sho"n
by its failure to pay the appellate doc#et fees. It is "ell=settled that a party "ho does not appeal from
the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than "hat he has
obtained from the lo"er court "hose decision is brought up on appeal.