SALGADO VS.

COURT OF APPEALS March 26, 1984 (128 SCRA 395)

FACTS : PCIB filed action to recover on a promissory note with prayer for writ of
attachment. CFI Rizal lifted the writ of attachment it previously issued after petitioner
moved to quash it. Bank posted bond. The Court of Appeals reconsidered and
authorized the issuance of the writ of attachment.

ISSUE: Can a writ of attachment issue if note sued upon is fully secured?

HELD: Petition is impressed with merit. The chief purpose of attachment is to secure a
contingent lien on defendant’s property until plaintiff can obtain a judgment and have
such property applied to its satisfaction or to make some provision to 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.

Sec. 1, Rule 57 states the grounds on which attachment may issue.

Sec. 3, Rule 57. An order of attachment shall be granted only when it appears by the
affidavit of the applicant, or of some other person who personally knows the facts that
xxxxx there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the
action. The reason for the rule prohibiting attachment where indebtedness was already
secured is to prevent the secured creditors from attaching additional property and thus
tying up more of the debtor’s property than was necessary to secure the indebtedness.
To sustain an order of attachment, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish either of
these 2 facts: a) that the obligation had not been secured srcinally b) that, if secured at
its beginning, the security later became valueless. Sec. 13, Rule 57 authorizes the
discharge of an attachment where the same had been improperly or irregularly issued.
Rule authorizing issuance of writ of attachment must be strictly construed in favor of
defendant.