ALL FOR JESUS

Rule 57: Preliminary Attachment- Annotations

Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro, 700 SCRA 547, G.R. No. 185734 July 3, 2013
Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Attachment; Preliminary Attachment; By its nature,
preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court (Rule 57), is an ancillary remedy
applied for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon the relief
sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or
incidental to the main action.—By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the Rules
of Court (Rule 57), is an ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake but to enable the
attaching party to realize upon the relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or
principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the main action. As such, it is available
during its pendency which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights
and interests during the interim, awaiting the ultimate effects of a final judgment in the case. In
addition, attachment is also availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or
constructive seizure of the property in those instances where personal or substituted service of
summons on the defendant cannot be effected.
Ligon vs. Regional Trial Court, branch 56, Makati City, 717 SCRA 373, G.R. No. 190028 February 26,
2014
Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Attachment; Words and Phrases; Attachment is defined as
a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal custody, either
at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of
any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party.—Attachment is
defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal
custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. Case law
instructs that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against the particular
property, enforceable against the whole world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a
specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very
dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property
attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owner’s debt. The lien
continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until
the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by
law. Thus, a prior registration of an attachment lien creates a preference, such that when an
attachment has been duly levied upon a property, a purchaser thereof subsequent to the
attachment takes the property subject to the said attachment. As provided under PD 1529, said
registration operates as a form of constructive notice to all persons.
1
Page

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

Same; Special Civil Actions; Contempt; In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt
comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court.—Contempt of court has
been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense,
contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body
or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence
or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body. In its
restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or
dignity of a court.
Same; Same; Same; Indirect Contempt; Words and Phrases; Indirect contempt or constructive
contempt is that which is committed out of the presence of the court. Any improper conduct
tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice
would constitute indirect contempt.—Contempt of court is of two (2) kinds, namely: direct and
indirect contempt. Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that which is committed out of
the presence of the court. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice would constitute indirect contempt.

Torres vs. Satsatin, 605 SCRA 453, G.R. No. 166759 November 25, 2009
Remedial Law; Attachment; Definition of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment.—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.
Same; Same; Surety Bond; In accepting a surety bond, it is necessary that all the requisites for its
approval are met otherwise the bond should be rejected.—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.
Same; Same; 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.—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.
2
Page

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

Same; Same; Three stages involved in the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment; For
the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be
first obtained.—In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 260 (1992), 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.
Same; Same; 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; 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.—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 ser vice, 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.

Mangila vs. Court of Appeals, 387 SCRA 162, G.R. No. 125027 August 12, 2002
Actions; Attachments; Pleadings and Practice; A party to a suit may, at any time after filing the
complaint, avail of the provisional remedies under the Rules of Court, and, specifically, Rule 57
on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy “at the commencement of the
action or at any time thereafter.”—As a preliminary note, a distinction should be made between
issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment. It is necessary to distinguish between
the two to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired to
validly implement the writ. This distinction is crucial in resolving whether there is merit in
petitioner’s argument. This Court has long settled the issue of when jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant should be acquired in cases where a party resorts to provisional remedies. A
party to a suit may, at any time after filing the complaint, avail of the provisional remedies under
the Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the
3

remedy “at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter.” This phrase refers to
Page

the date of filing of the complaint which is the moment that marks “the commencement of the

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

action.” The reference plainly is to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or even
before summons issues.
Same; Same; The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages—the
issuance by the court of the order granting the application, the issuance of the writ of
attachment pursuant to the order, and the implementation of the writ; For the initial two stages,
it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained, but once
the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the
defendant.—Furthermore, we have 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.
Same; Same; Summons by Publication; If the defendant’s whereabouts could not be ascertained
after the sheriff had served the summons at her given address, then plaintiff should immediately
ask the court for service of summons by publication on the defendant; The condition of a
resident temporarily out of the country is the exact situation contemplated in Section 16, Rule
14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, providing for service of summons by publication.—The rules
provide for certain remedies in cases where personal service could not be effected on a party.
Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that whenever the defendant’s “whereabouts
are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be
effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation x x x.” Thus, if petitioner’s
whereabouts could not be ascertained after the sheriff had served the summons at her given
address, then respondent could have immediately asked the court for service of summons by
publication on petitioner. Moreover, as private respondent also claims that petitioner was
abroad at the time of the service of summons, this made petitioner a resident who is temporarily
out of the country. This is the exact situation contemplated in Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure, providing for service of summons by publication.
Same; Same; An alias summons belatedly served on a defendant cannot be deemed to cure the
fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment.—In conclusion, we hold
that the alias summons belatedly served on petitioner 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
petitioner without first obtaining jurisdiction over her 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
4
Page

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a
belated service.
Same; Venue; A mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties
from bringing a case in other venues—the parties must be able to show that such stipulation is
exclusive; Venue stipulations in a contract, while considered valid and enforceable, do not as a
rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court.—The Rules of
Court provide that parties to an action may agree in writing on the venue on which an action
should be brought. However, a mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to
preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show that
such stipulation is exclusive. Thus, absent words that show the parties’ intention to restrict the
filing of a suit in a particular place, courts will allow the filing of a case in any venue, as long as
jurisdictional requirements are followed. Venue stipulations in a contract, while considered valid
and enforceable, do not as a rule supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised
Rules of Court. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, they should be considered
merely as an agreement on additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.

Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan, 349 SCRA 745, G.R. No. 139941 January 19, 2001
Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Attachment; The determination of the existence of grounds
to discharge a writ of attachment rests in the sound discretion of the lower courts.—The Rules of
Court specifically provide for the remedies of a defendant whose property or asset has been
attached. As has been consistently ruled by this Court, the determination of the existence of
grounds to discharge a writ of attachment rests in the sound discretion of the lower courts.
Same; Same; Same; Two courses of action to quash attachment.— The question in this case is:
What can the herein petitioner do to quash the attachment of the L/C? There are two courses of
action available to the petitioner: First. To file a counterbond in accordance with Rule 57, Section
12, Second. To quash the attachment on the ground that it was irregularly or improvidently
issued, as provided for in Section 13 of the same Rule.
Same; Same; Same; The rule contemplates that the defect must be in the very issuance of the
attachment writ.—It is clear that these grounds have nothing to do with the issuance of the writ
of attachment. Much less do they attack the issuance of the writ at that time as improper or
irregular. And yet, the rule contemplates that the defect must be in the very issuance of the
attachment writ. For instance, the attachment may be discharged under Section 13 of Rule 57
when it is proven that the allegations of the complaint were deceptively framed, or when the
complaint fails to state a cause of action. Supervening events which may or may not justify the
discharge of the writ are not within the purview of this particular rule.
Same; Same; Same; The merits of the action in which a writ of preliminary attachment has been
5
Page

issued are not triable on a motion for dissolution of the attachment.—Thus, this Court has time

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

and again ruled that the merits of the action in which a writ of preliminary attachment has been
issued are not triable on a motion for dissolution of the attachment, otherwise an applicant for
the lifting of the writ could force a trial of the merits of the case on a mere motion.
Same; Same; Same; When the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same
time the applicant’s cause of action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or dissolved is by a
counterbond.—More-over, we have held that when the writ of attachment is issued upon a
ground which is at the same time the applicant’s cause of action, the only other way the writ can
be lifted or dissolved is by a counterbond, in accordance with Section 12 of the same rule. This
recourse, however, was not availed of by petitioner, as noted by the Solicitor General in his
comment.

Luzon Development Bank vs. Krishnan, 755 SCRA 358, G.R. No. 203530 April 13, 2015
Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Attachment; Section 2, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court
explicitly states that “[a]n order of attachment may be issued either ex parte or upon motion
with notice and hearing by the court in which the action is pending, or by the Court of Appeals
(CA) or the Supreme Court (SC), and must require the sheriff of the court to attach so much of
the property in the Philippines of the party against whom it is issued, not exempt from
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless such party makes
deposit or gives a bond as hereinafter provided in an amount equal to that fixed in the order,
which may be the amount sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand or the value of the
property to be attached as stated by the applicant, exclusive of costs.”—Section 2, Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court explicitly states that “[a]n order of attachment may be issued either ex parte or
upon motion with notice and hearing by the court in which the action is pending, or by the Court
of Appeals or the Supreme Court, and must require the sheriff of the court to attach so much of
the property in the Philippines of the party against whom it is issued, not exempt from
execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless such party makes
deposit or gives a bond as hereinafter provided in an amount equal to that fixed in the order,
which may be the amount sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand or the value of the
property to be attached as stated by the applicant, exclusive of costs.”

Same; Same; Same; It is evidently clear that once the writ of attachment has been issued, the
only remedy of the petitioners in lifting the same is through a cash deposit or the filing of the
counter-bond.—Section 5 of the same Rule likewise states that “[t]he sheriff enforcing the writ
shall without delay and with all reasonable diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in
the action, only so much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom the writ is
issued, not exempt from execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless
6

the former makes a deposit with the court from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond
Page

executed to the applicant, in an amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in the order of
RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

attachment or to the value of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs.” From the
foregoing, it is evidently clear that once the writ of attachment has been issued, the only remedy
of the petitioners in lifting the same is through a cash deposit or the filing of the counter-bond.
Thus, the Court holds that petitioner’s argument that it has the option to deposit real property
instead of depositing cash or filing a counter-bond to discharge the attachment or stay the
implementation thereof is unmeritorious.

Northern Islands Co., Inc. vs. Garcia, 753 SCRA 603, G.R. No. 203240 March 18, 2015
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Notice of Appeal; Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court provides that in appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon
the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the
other parties.—Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that in appeals by notice of
appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due
time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
Same; Provisional Remedies; Attachment; Note that in Sps. Olib v. Judge Pastoral, 188 SCRA 692
(1990), the Supreme Court (SC), in view of the nature of a preliminary attachment, definitively
ruled that the attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate action independent of the
principal action because the attachment was only an incident of such action.—Note that in Sps.
Olib v. Judge Pastoral, 188 SCRA 692 (1990), the Court, in view of the nature of a preliminary
attachment, definitively ruled that the attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate
action independent of the principal action because the attachment was only an incident of such
action, viz.: Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse
party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time
thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the
plaintiff or any proper party. It is an auxiliary remedy and cannot have an independent existence
apart from the main suit or claim instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. Being merely
ancillary to a principal proceeding, the attachment must fail if the suit itself cannot be
maintained as the purpose of the writ can no longer be justified. The consequence is that where
the main action is appealed, the attachment which may have been issued as an incident of that
action, is also considered appealed and so also removed from the jurisdiction of the court a quo.
The attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate action independent of the principal
action because the attachment was only an incident of such action.

Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. vs. Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation, 761 SCRA 464, G.R. No.
212025 July 1, 2015
7
Page

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Attachment; By its nature, preliminary attachment, under
Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, “is an ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake but to
enable the attaching party to realize upon relief sought and expected to be granted in the main
or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the main action.”—By its nature,
preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, “is an ancillary remedy applied for
not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon relief sought and expected
to be granted in the main or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the main
action. As such, it is available during the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a
litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition and for
purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. In addition, attachment is also
availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or constructive seizure of the
property in those instances where personal or substituted service of summons on the defendant
cannot be effected.”
Same; Same; Same; Attachment Bond; The party applying for the order of attachment must
thereafter give a bond executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court in its
order granting the issuance of the writ.—The party applying for the order of attachment must
thereafter give a bond executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court in its
order granting the issuance of the writ. The purpose of an attachment bond is to answer for all
costs and damages which the adverse party may sustain by reason of the attachment if the court
finally rules that the applicant is not entitled to the writ.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Damages; The usual procedure is to file an application for damages
with due notice to the other party and his sureties. The other method would be to incorporate
the application in the answer with compulsory counterclaim.—An application for damages must
be filed in the same case where the bond was issued, either (a) before the trial or (b) before the
appeal is perfected or (c) before the judgment becomes executory. The usual procedure is to file
an application for damages with due notice to the other party and his sureties. The other
method would be to incorporate the application in the answer with compulsory counterclaim.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Section 20, Rule 57 specifically requires that the application for
damages against the wrongful attachment, whether filed before the trial court or appellate
court, must be with due notice to the attaching party and his surety or sureties.—Section 20,
Rule 57 specifically requires that the application for damages against the wrongful attachment,
whether filed before the trial court or appellate court, must be with due notice to the attaching
party and his surety or sureties. Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and
shall be included in the judgment on the main case. Due notice to the adverse party and its
surety setting forth the facts supporting the applicant’s right to damages and the amount
thereof under the bond is indispensable. The surety should be given an opportunity to be heard
as to the reality or reasonableness of the damages resulting from the wrongful issuance of the
writ. In the absence of due notice to the surety, therefore, no judgment for damages may be
8
Page

entered and executed against it.

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

Same; Same; Same; Under no circumstance, whatsoever, can the garnished funds or attached
properties, under the custody of the sheriff or the clerk of court, be released to the attaching
party before the promulgation of judgment.—The chief purpose of the remedy of attachment is
to secure a contingent lien on defendant’s property until plaintiff can, by appropriate
proceedings, obtain a judgment and have such property applied to its satisfaction, or to make
some provision for unsecured debts in cases where the means of satisfaction thereof are liable
to be removed beyond the jurisdiction, or improperly disposed of or concealed, or otherwise
placed beyond the reach of creditors. The garnished funds or attached properties could only be
released to the attaching party after a judgment in his favor is obtained. Under no circumstance,
whatsoever, can the garnished funds or attached properties, under the custody of the sheriff or
the clerk of court, be released to the attaching party before the promulgation of judgment.
Same; Same; Same; Cash deposits and counter-bonds posted by the defendant to lift the writ of
attachment is a security for the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may obtain;
they are thus, mere replacement of the property previously attached.—Cash deposits and
counter-bonds posted by the defendant to lift the writ of attachment is a security for the
payment of any judgment that the attaching party may obtain; they are, thus, mere
replacements of the property previously attached. Accordingly, the P8,634,448.20 cash deposit
of petitioner, as replacement of the properties to be attached, should never have been released
to Win Multi-Rich.
Same; Same; Same; Surety Bond; Under Section 20, Rule 57, in relation to Section 4 therein, the
surety bond shall answer for all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all
damages which he may sustain by reason of the attachment.—Under Section 20, Rule 57, in
relation to Section 4 therein, the surety bond shall answer for all the costs which may be
adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he may sustain by reason of the
attachment. In other words, the damages sought to be enforced against the surety bond are
unliquidated. Necessarily, a notice and hearing before the finality of judgment must be
undertaken to properly determine the amount of damages that was suffered by the defendant
due to the improper attachment. These damages to be imposed against the attaching party and
his sureties are different from the principal case, and must be included in the judgment.
Same; Same; Same; Counter-Bond; Under Section 17, Rule 57, in relation to Section 12 therein,
the cash deposit or the counter-bond shall secure the payment of any judgment that the
attaching party may recover in the action.—On the other hand, under Section 17, Rule 57, in
relation to Section 12 therein, the cash deposit or the counter-bond shall secure the payment of
any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the action. Stated differently, the damages
sought to be charged against the surety bond are liquidated. The final judgment had already
determined the amount to be awarded to the winning litigant on the main action. Thus, there is
nothing left to do but to execute the judgment against the losing party, or in case of
insufficiency, against its sureties.
9
Page

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

Watercraft Venture Corporation vs. Wolfe, 770 SCRA 179, G.R. No. 181721 September 9, 2015
Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Preliminary Attachment; Words and Phrases; 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.—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. However, it should be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy because
it exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance. It must be granted only on concrete and
specific grounds and not merely on general averments quoting the words of the rules. Since
attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and summary in nature, the rules on the application of a writ
of attachment must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant.
Same; Same; Same; Affidavit of Merit; Bond; For the issuance of an ex parte issuance of the
preliminary attachment to be valid, an affidavit of merit and an applicant’s bond must be filed
with the court in which the action is pending.—For the issuance of an ex parte issuance of the
preliminary attachment to be valid, an affidavit of merit and an applicant’s bond must be filed
with the court in which the action is pending. Such bond executed to the adverse party in the
amount fixed by the court is subject to the conditions that the applicant will pay: (1) all costs
which may be adjudged to the adverse party; and (2) all damages which such party may sustain
by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled
thereto. As to the requisite affidavit of merit, Section 3, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court states that
an order of attachment shall be granted only when it appears in the affidavit of the applicant, or
of some other person who personally knows the facts: 1. that a sufficient cause of action exists;
2. that the case is one of those mentioned in Section 1 hereof; 3. that there is no other sufficient
security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action; and 4. that the amount due to the
applicant, or the value of the property the possession of which he is entitled to recover, is as
much as the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims.

Same; Same; Same; The applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must sufficiently show the
factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the
debtor’s mere nonpayment of the debt or failure to comply with his obligation.—Fraudulent
intent is not a physical entity, but a condition of the mind beyond the reach of the senses,
usually kept secret, very unlikely to be confessed, and therefore, can only be proved by
10

unguarded expressions, conduct and circumstances. Thus, the applicant for a writ of preliminary
attachment must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud because
Page

fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor’s mere nonpayment of the debt or failure

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

to comply with his obligation. The particulars of such circumstances necessarily include the time,
persons, places and specific acts of fraud committed. An affidavit which does not contain
concrete and specific grounds is inadequate to sustain the issuance of such writ. In fact, mere
general averments render the writ defective and the court that ordered its issuance acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.

Phil-Air Conditioning Center vs. RCJ Lines, 775 SCRA 265, G.R. No. 193821 November 23, 2015
Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Attachment; A writ of preliminary attachment is a
provisional remedy issued by the court where an action is pending to be levied upon the
property or proper ties of the defendant.—A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional
remedy issued by the court where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or
properties of the defendant. The property is held by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of
whatever judgment that might be secured by the attaching party against the defendant. The
grant of the writ is conditioned not only on the finding of the court that there exists a valid
ground for its issuance. The Rules also require the applicant to post a bond.
Same; Same; Same; Various Modes of Discharging an Attachment.—There are various modes of
discharging an attachment under Rule 57, viz.: (1) by depositing cash or posting a counter-bond
under Section 12; (2) by proving that the attachment bond was improperly or irregularly issued
or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient under Section 13; (3) by showing that the
attachment is excessive under Section 13; and (4) by claiming that the property is exempt from
execution under Section 2.

Same; Same; Same; Counterbond; The amount of the cash deposit or counter-bond must be
equal to that fixed by the court in the order of attachment, exclusive of costs.—The amount of
the cash deposit or counter-bond must be equal to that fixed by the court in the order of
attachment, exclusive of costs. The cash deposit or counter-bond shall secure the payment of
any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the action. The filing of a counter-bond to
discharge the attachment applies when there has already been a seizure of property by the
sheriff and all that is entailed is the presentation of a motion to the proper court, seeking
approval of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to the value of the property seized
and the lifting of the attachment on the basis thereof. The counter-bond stands in place of the
property so released.
Same; Same; Same; Damages; To merit an award of actual damages arising from a wrongful
attachment, the attachment defendant must prove, with the best evidence obtainable, the fact
of loss or injury suffered and the amount thereof.—In Spouses Yu v. Ngo Yet Te, 514 SCRA 423
11

(2007), we held that if the claim for actual damages covers unrealized profits, the amount of
Page

unrealized profits must be established and supported by independent evidence of the mean

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer
ALL FOR JESUS

income of the business undertaking interrupted by the illegal sei zure. We explained in Spouses
Yu that to merit an award of actual damages arising from a wrongful attachment, the attachment
defendant must prove, with the best evidence obtainable, the fact of loss or injury suffered and
the amount thereof. Such loss or injury must be of the kind which is not only capable of proof
but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. As to its amount, the same
must be measurable based on specific facts, and not on guesswork or speculation. Spouses Yu is
on all fours with the present dispute because it also involved a claim for actual damages arising
from the illegal attachment of the claimant’s properties, one of which was a passenger bus.

12
Page

RoxasRoseAnnClaireBerenguer