Topic: Preliminary Attachment
Wolfe was a British national and was the shipyard manager
An affidavit of attachment must contain specific
Celeste 1. Watercraft Venture Corporation vs. Wolfe, GR No. 181721, Sept. 9, 2015 allegations to show that the issuance of the writ of
attachment is proper
The two (2) types of fraud, i.e., Dolo Incident and Dolo
Dador 2. Security Bank vs. Great Wall Commercial , GR No. 219345, Jan. 30, 2017 causante; are grounds for the issuance of the Writ of
Preliminary Attachment.
The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment
involves three stages: first, the court issues the order
Mercado 3. Sofia Torres vs. Nicanor Satsatin, GR No. 166759, Nov. 25, 2009 granting the application; second, the writ of attachment
issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and
third, the writ is implemented
As it is, the affidavit does not contain sufficient
concrete and specific grounds to sustain the issuance assigned to Radstock. They demanded payment from
of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment. Mere general
Banguis 4. PNCC vs. Hon. Amalia Dy, GR No. 156887, Oct. 3, 2005 averments render the writ defective and the court that of money with WPA against PNCC. RTC granted and
ordered its issuance acted with grave abuse of
discretion tantamount to excess of jurisdiction.
of the Watercraft. Wolfe stored his sailboad in Watercraft's
storage facilities, but never paid for the storage fees. After
Watercraft terminated Wolfe's employment, the latter
acknowledged an obligation of $16k, which he failed to pay. Whether the issuance of the
Watercraft filed a complaint for a sum of money with
application for a writ of preliminary attachment. This was
granted, but the CA reversed, holding that the Affidavit of
Merit failed to show the fraudulanet intent on the part of
Wolfe.
The Security Bank (Petitioner) filed a Complaint for Sum of
Money with Application for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Attachment against the Great Wall Commercial Press
Company, Inc. and its sureties, Atienza et al (Respondents).
The Respondents filed their Motion to Lift Writ of
Preliminary Attachment Ad Cautelam (Motion). They
invoked the rule, “fraudulent intent could not be inferred
from a debtor's inability to pay or comply with its
obligations”.
The RTC denied the Motion. It ruled that the Petitioner is
entitled to the Writ because the respondents committed
fraud in the performance of the obligation.
The CA reversed the RTC’s ruling and granted the Motion.
It opined that the Petitioner was not entitled to the Writ
because the fraud committed by the Respondent was not
present at the time of contracting the obligation (dolo
causante). It was only present thereafter (dolo incidente).
Petitioners (siblings) owns a lot. Their mother was enticed
by respondent to sell their respective lots. Respondent was
authorized to sell the lots. The lots were sold to Solar.
Despite payment by Solar, respondent failed to remit the
proceeds of the sale to petitioners. Thus, petitioners filed a
case for sum of money and also filed an ex-parte motion for
the issuance of a Writ of Attachment. Respondent filed a
Motion to Discharge th Writ claiming that the bond was
issued before the issuance of the Writ of Attachment and
the Writ was issued before summons was received.
Marubeni extended two loans to PNCC. This credit was
WON the CA erred when it
PNCC but to no avail. Hence, Radstock filed case for sum
denied the Motion to Set Aside that while PNCC continued to receive revenues from toll charges and
the Order and/or Discharge the other loan obligations the debt to Marubeni remained unpaid. Again,
allowed garnishment. PNCC moved to set aside the same.
Writ of Attachment.
CA denied the Motion to Set Aside Order and Discharge
WPA as well. Issue is whether or not the CA erred.
Watercraft failed to meet one of the requisites for the issuance of a
writ of PA. i.e., that the case is one of those mentioned in Sec. 1,
Rule, 57, and that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in
improvidently issuing such writ. Watercraft failed to particularly state
writ of PA was valid? - NO
in its affidavit of merit the circumstances constituting intent to defraud
creditors on the part of Wolfe, as welll as to establish that he is a
flight risk.
An amendment to the Rules of Court added the phrase "in the
performance thereof". This means the Court included "fraud in the
Whether "dolo incidente" is performance of the obligation" as a ground for the issuance of the
covered by the rules on Writ of Preliminary Attachment.
Preliminary Attachment;
thus, the Preliminary Thus, in this case, the CA should have granted the issuance of the
Attachment can be granted Writ. The CA should have also considered the Respondent's
against the respondents- fraudulent acts i.e., respondents' submission of Repayment Proposal
YES even if they know they'll be in default; respondents' failure to show up
in the meeting with the Security Bank, which they themselves
requested without citing their reason thereof.
Yes. 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
Whether or not the discharge defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and
of the Writ of Attachment is authority to act in any manner against the defendant. It is
proper 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 applicant's affidavit and bond, and the order must be
served upon him.
YES. We do not see how the above allegations, even on the
assumption they are all true, can be considered as falling within sub-
paragraphs (d) and (e). The first three assert, in essence, that PNCC
has failed to pay its debt and is offering for sale its assets knowing
that it does not have enough to pay its obligations. As previously held,
fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from a debtor’s inability to pay or
comply with obligations. Also, the fact that PNCC has insufficient
assets to cover its obligations is no indication of fraud even if PNCC
attempts to sell them because it is quite possible that PNCC was
entering into a bona fide good faith sale where at least fair market
value for the assets will be received. In such a situation, Marubeni
would not be in a worse position than before as the assets will still be
there but just liquidated. Also, that the Financial Statements do not
reflect the loan obligation cannot be construed as a scheme to
defraud creditors. As to the last two paragraphs, these merely stated
no fraud can be deduced from these acts. While these may be
sufficient averments to be awarded damages once substantiated by
competent evidence and for which a writ of execution will issue, they
are not sufficient to obtain the harsh provisional remedy of preliminary
attachment which requires more than mere deliberate failure to pay a
debt.
In short, what was missing and what should have been alleged in the
affidavit of merit was that the disposition of assets was attended by
the so-called "badges of fraud," i.e., inadequate consideration,
fictitious sale, etc.… As it is, the affidavit does not contain sufficient
concrete and specific grounds to sustain the issuance of the Writ of
Preliminary Attachment. Mere general averments render the writ
defective and the court that ordered its issuance acted with grave
abuse of discretion tantamount toN. excess of jurisdiction.

Attachment is an ancillary remedy. Being ancillary,
Bayona 5. Silangan Textile vs. Hon. Demetria, GR No. 166719, Mar. 12, 2007 they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon
the result of the main action.
The RTC denied the Motion. It ruled that the Petitioner
Bondoc 6. Mindanao Savings & Loan Association vs. CA, GR No. 84481, Apr. 18, 1989 is entitled to the Writ because the respondents
committed fraud in the performance of the obligation
Villadolid 7. Jose Calderon vs. IAC, GR No. 74696, Nov. 11, 1987
The CA reversed the RTC’s ruling and granted the
Motion. It opined that the Petitioner is not entitled to Sheriff Cabang was ordered to attach properties. Turned
the Writ because the fraud committed by the
Estera 8. Esteban Uy Jr. vs. CA, GR No. 83897, Nov. 9, 1999
Respondent was not present at the time of contracting Hon. Thus, the latter 2 filed a 3rd party claim and
the obligation (dolo causante). It was only present
thereafter (dolo incidente).
When the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground
which is at the same time the applicant’s cause of
Carpio 9. Metro, Inc. vs. Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc., GR No. 171741, Nov. 27, 2009
action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or
dissolved is by a counterbond.
A writ of attachment is not extinguished by the
Dumayas 10. Alfredo Lim Jr. vs. Lazaro, GR No. 185734, July 3, 2013
execution of a compromise agreement.
Topic: Preliminary Injunction
Luzon Spinning filed a case against Silangan Textile for
collection of sum of money with prayer for issuance of Writ
of Preliminary Attachment.
Writ of Preliminary Attachment granted by RTC.
Prior to this civil case, Luzon Spinning also filed a criminal
case for violation of B.P. 22.
2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that
civil case implied in criminal case already, therefore
separate civil case filed by Luzon Spinning must be
dismissed.
Mercado filed a complaint against defendants D.S. Homes,
Inc., its directors, and Davao Savings & Loan Association,
Inc. and its president Villamor for "Rescission of Contract
with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment.
The Judge issued an ex parte the application for a writ of
preliminary attachment. D. S. Homes. Inc., Et. Al. and the
Davao Savings & Loan Association and Villamor filed a
motions to quash the writ of attachment. When their
motions were denied they offered a counter-bond. Hence,
the writ of preliminary attachment was lifted.
Subsequently, petitioner MSLA and Villamor filed in the CA
a petition for certiorari to annul the order of attachment and
the denial of their motion to quash.
The CA dismissed the petition.
Calderon alleging that he was defrauded by LBC and
Schulze sought the attachment of the latters' properties.
Counterbond was filed and attachments were lifted.
Subsequently LBC and Schulze filed action against the
impropriety of the issuance of writ of PA - which the court
granted and held Calderon liable for damages.
Uy obtained a favorable judgment for Recovery of Sum with
prayer for issuance of WPA against Sy Yuk Tak. And so
out the attached properties were owned by Ting and Yu
subsequently prayed for attachment of those properties
since it was already sold in public auction. Uy questioned
the interference of the 2 over properties in Custodia Legis.
Lara’s gifts (Respondents) filed a complaint for sum of
money with a prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment on the ground of fraud - that Petitioner
transacted directly with a foreign buyer.
RTC issued the WRIT which it eventually lifted.
CA annulled RTC’s order and ruled that it may be
discharged only by filing of counterbond.
Lim filed a complaint for sum of money against Spouses
Lazaro after their checks were dishonored. A writ of
preliminary attachment was issued. Later, they entered into WON the writ of attachment is
a compromise agreement which the court approved.
Subsequently, the writ was quashed and lifted as the main lifted.
action has already been terminated. Lim assasiled the
propriety of the lifting of the writ.
WON with the dismissal of the
civil case, the writ of
Preliminary Attachment should
also be discharged.
WON the CA correctly dismiss
the petition for certiorari to
annul the order of attachment
and the denial of their motion
to quash the same
WON the filing of counterbond
constitutes as a waiver to
attack the propriety of the
issued WOPA.
WON a 3rd party may interfere seizing it. It follows further that the court may make an interlocutory
and rightfully interpose a claim order, upon the filing of such bond as may be necessary, to release
over the property subject to
attachment
WON the writ of attachment
issued by the trial court was
improperly issued such that it
may be discharged without the
filing of a counterbond.
extinguished and properly
Yes. Attachment is an ancillary remedy. Being an ancillary or auxiliary
remedy, 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. They are provisional because
they constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency
of the action and they are ancillary because they are mere incidents
in and are dependent upon the result of the main action.
Yes. After the defendant has obtained the discharge of the writ of
attachment by filing a counterbond, he may not file another motion to
quash the writ for impropriety or irregularity in issuing it. Because the
writ had already been quashed by filing a counterbond, hence,
another motion to quash it would be pointless.
No. Private respondents could have sought, without need of filing any
counterbond, the discharge of the attachment if the same was
improperly or irregularly issued, as provided in Section 13, Rule 57 of
the Rules of Court.
Whether the attachment was discharged by either of the two (2) ways
indicated in the law, i.e., by filing a counterbond or by showing that
the order of attachment was improperly or irregularly issued, the
liability of the surety on the attachment bond subsists because the
final reckoning is when "the Court shall finally adjudge that the
attaching creditor was not entitled" to the issuance of the attachment
writ in the first place.
The attachment debtor cannot be deemed to have waived any defect
in the issuance of the attachment writ by simply availing himself of
one way of discharging the attachment writ, instead of the other.
Moreover, the filing of a counterbond is a speedier way of discharging
the attachment writ maliciously sought out by the attaching creditor
instead of the other way, which, in most instances like in the present
case, would require presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial on
the merits and cannot easily be settled in a pending incident of the
case.
Yes. It has been seen that a separate action by the third party who
claims to be the owner of the property attached is appropriate. If this
is so, it must be admitted that the judge trying such action may render
judgment ordering the sheriff or whoever has in possession of the
attached property to deliver it to the plaintiff claimant or desist from
the property pending final adjudication of the title.
In this case, therefore, Ting and Yu may rightfully interfere with the
said properties subject of attachment.
In fact, the judgment debtor Sy Yuk Tak denied owning the properties
attached as evidenced by Sheriff Cabang’s report.
No. Since the writ of preliminary attachment was properly issued (the
affidavit of Respondent sufficiently showed the factual circumstance
of the alleged fraud), the only way it can be dissolved is by filing a
counterbond in accordance with Section 12, Rule 57 of the Rules of
Court. It is clear that in respondents’ amended complaint of fraud is
not only alleged as a ground for the issuance of the writ of preliminary
attachment, but it is also the core of respondents’ complaint.
No. A writ of attachment is not extinguished by the execution of a
compromise agreement between the parties. The parties to the
compromise agreement should not be deprived of the protection
provided by an attachment lien especially in an instance where one
reneges on his obligations under the agreement. An attachment lien
continues until the debt is paid, or the sale is had under execution
issued on the judgment or until the judgment is satisfied, or the
attachment discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by
law.

A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the
concurrence of the following essential requisites, to
wit: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is
material and substantial; (b) the right of the
complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is
an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
Sanchez 1. Kang vs. Pagbilao Dev. Corp., GR No. 195374, Mar. 10, 2014
prevent serious damage. While a clear showing of the
right is necessary, its existence need not be
conclusively established. Hence, to be entitled to the
writ, it is sufficient that the complainant shows that he
has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in
his complaint.
An injury is considered irreparable, according to
Philippine National Bank v. Castalloy Technology
Corporation, “...if it is of such constant and frequent
recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be
had therefor in a court of law, or where there is no
Domingo 2. Bank of the Phil. Islands vs. Hontanosas, GR No. 157163, June 25, 2014
standard by which their amount can be measured with
reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of
mathematical computation.”
For the 1st requisite for a writ of injunction to issue, it
is necessary that the applicant must have material and
Valeza 3. Thunder Security vs. NFA, 654 SCRA 714
substantial rights that have to be protected by the
courts
Arsenio left parcels of land when he died and these lands
are now subject of 2 consolidated cases regarding on the
issue of ownership. While the case was pending, Pagbilao
Development Corporation purchased from Simeon,
Mercedes and Rosalina the six (6) properties which were
the subject of the consolidated case. Accordingly, the
annotations were carried over to PDC’s titles. When Pedro
and the other heirs learned of the sale of the subject
Whether or not the RTC
properties to PDC, they filed a motion to require Simeon
committed grave abuse of
and Rosalina to explain why they sold the properties
discretion when it issued an
without permission from the RTC.
order granting the preliminary
injunction. NO! the order of
They also file an application for writ of preliminary
RTC was reinstated.
injunction. They alleged that they were in actual and
physical possession of the subject properties; and that PDC
entered into the said premises, destroyed some structures
therein and started to construct improvements on the
properties without their consent.
RTC granted the issuance of PI but was reversed by the
CA.
W/N the issuance of the writ of
Respondents applied for a writ of preliminary injunction to
preliminary injunction against
enjoin BPI from foreclosing the real estate and chattel
BPI, its agents and
mortgages. RTC issued the writ which was upheld by the
representatives, was in order.
CA.
– NO.
Whether or not the CA was
correct when it set aside the
writ of preliminary injunction
Thunder Security entered into a Contract for Security
Services with the NFA. As the contract was about to expire,
NFA caused the publication of the invitation to bid.
Thunder’s application to bid was rejected for failure to
submit the required documents. It filed a protest questioning
the validity of the bidding procedure. Upon denial of the
protest, it filed with the RTC a Petition for Prohibition and
Preliminary Injunction. RTC issued a writ of preliminary
injunction. CA set aside the writ.
A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy which is
adjunct to a main suit, as well as a preservative remedy issued to
maintain the status quo of the things subject of the action or the
relations between the parties during the pendency of the suit. The
purpose of injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous
irremediable injury to the parties before their claims can be
thoroughly studied and educated. Its sole aim is to preserve the
status quo until the merits of the case are fully heard. A writ of
preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the
following essential requisites, to wit:
(a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and
substantial;
(b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and
(c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage.
The well-entrenched rule is that the grant or denial of the writ of
preliminary injunction rests upon the sound discretion of the court.
The trial court is given a wide latitude in this regard. Thus, in the
absence of a manifest abuse, such discretion must not be interfered
with.
petitioner from proceeding with the foreclosure of the mortgages was
plainly erroneous and unwarranted.
The conditions for the issuance of the injunctive writ are:
(a) That the right to be protected exists prima facie;
(b) That the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right;
and
(c) That there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ
to prevent serious damage.
An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse, or a right
which is merely contingent and may never arise; or to restrain an act
which does not give rise to a cause of action; or to prevent the
perpetration of an act prohibited by statute. Indeed, a right, to be
protected by injunction, means a right clearly founded on or granted
by law or is enforceable as a matter of law.
Under the circumstances averred in the complaint, the issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction upon the application of the
respondents was improper. They had admittedly constituted the real
estate and chattel mortgages to secure the performance of their loan
obligation to BPI and, as such, they were fully aware of the
consequences on their rights in the properties given as collaterals
should the loan secured be unpaid. The foreclosure of the mortgages
would be the remedy provided by law for the mortgagee to exact
payment. In fact, they did not dispute BPI’s allegations that they had
not fully paid their obligation, and that the complaint was precisely
brought by them in order to stave off the impending foreclosure of the
mortgages based on their claim that they had been compelled to sign
pre-printed standard bank loan forms and mortgage agreements.
Moreover, the applicant must prove that the violation sought to be
prevented would cause an irreparable injustice. But the respondents
failed to establish the irreparable injury they would suffer should the
writ of preliminary injunction not be issued. They principally feared the
loss of their possession and ownership of the mortgaged properties,
and faced the possibility of a criminal prosecution for the post-dated
checks they issued. But such fear of potential loss of possession and
ownership, or facing a criminal prosecution did not constitute the
requisite irreparable injury that could have warranted the issuance of
the writ of injunction.
No. All the requisites must be proven before a writ of preliminary
injunction shall be issued.
In this case, the first requisite is clearly absent. Thunder Security has
no more legal rights under the service contracts because when the
RTC issued its order granting the writ of preliminary injunction, the
contract has already expired.
For the first requisite, the applicant must have material and
substantial rights that have to be protected by the courts. An
injunction shall not issue to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or
future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which
may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a
cause of action. There must exist an actual right.
Thunder cannot lay claim to an actual, clear and positive right based
on an expired service contract.
 Due to Petitioners failure to pay the loan obligations they NO. CA did not err. Rule 58 Section 5 provides that a TRO may be
incurred with private respondent Bank, the latter applied for issued only if it appears from facts shown by affidavit or by verified
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage contracts securing application that great or irreparable injury would be inflicted on the
the loan. With that, Petitioners filed a Complaint for applicant before the writ of preliminary injunction could be heard.
Annulment of Mortgages with prayer for TRO and Writ of From the foregoing, it is clear that to be entitled to an injunctive writ,
For application for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Preliminary Injunction. the applicant must show that there exists a right to be protected
Injunction to prosper, the applicant should specifically WON the CA erred in denying which is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined.
Cabral 4. Lim vs. Court of Appeals, GR no. 190134, July 8, 2015 show their clear legal right for its issuance and show Initially, RTC granted and ordered the issuance of TRO then the issuance of TRO and/or Furthermore, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is
that they will suffer grave and irreparable injury if the eventually the Writ. Yet after trial on the merits, RTC lifted Writ of Preliminary Injunction material and substantial, and that there is an urgent and paramount
injunctive writ would not issue. the Writ. necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

Petitioners appealed to CA which ruled the same with RTC. IN THIS CASE, the petitioners merely alleged that the loans would
have been paid had the Bank not imposed excessive interests and
Hence this petition questioning the denial of their penalties. Nowhere can it be inferred that such non-payment will
applictaion for TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. result to grave or irreparable injury to petitioners.

Tagacay 5. Morales vs. Court of Appeals, GR Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015 1. The issuance of a TRO/WPI are, by nature, The case stemmed from a complaint filed before the Office 1. WON CA has subject matter a violation of the separation of powers principle.
provisional reliefs and auxiliary writs created under the of the Office of the Ombudsman accusing Binay, Jr. et al. of jurisdiction to issue a TRO
provisions of the Rules of Court, and are matters of Plunder and violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices and/or WPI enjoining the The breach of Congress in prohibiting provisional injunctions,
procedure which belong exclusively within the Act based on the anomalous procurement and construction implementation of a preventive such as in the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770, does
province of the Court. To take away from the courts of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. After a series of suspension order issued by the not only undermine the constitutional allocation of powers; it
their power to issue a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin an fact-finding investigations, Binay Jr., et al. were charged Ombudsman (YES) also practically dilutes a court's ability to carry out its
investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, is with several administrative and criminal cases functions. This is so since a particular case can easily be
considered an encroachment upon SCs constitutional (Ombudsman Cases). The Ombudsman, upon 2. WON CA gravely abused
rule-making authority, and thus, the Ombudsman's mooted by supervening events if no provisional injunctive
recommendation of its Special Panel of its discretion in issuing the relief is extended while the court is hearing the same.
reliance on the prohibition under Section 14, RA 6770
Investigators, issued a preventive suspension
cannot be countenanced. TRO and eventually, the Accordingly, the court's acquired jurisdiction, through which it
order against Binay Jr., et al pending the WPI enjoining the exercises its judicial power, is rendered nugatory. xxx To give
2. The abandonment of the condonation doctrine must resolution of the Ombudsman cases. implementation of the true meaning to the judicial power contemplated by the
be prospective, and hence, does not include this case. preventive suspension Framers of our Constitution, the Court's duly promulgated
The CA's resolutions directing the issuance of the Binay Jr. thus filed before the CA a Petition for order against Binay, Jr. rules of procedure should therefore remain unabridged, this,
assailed injunctive writs are considered proper Certiorari with prayer for issuance of TRO and/or based on the condonation even by statute. Truth be told, the policy against provisional
because they were all hinged on cases enunciating WPI to enjoin the implementation of the order, doctrine (NO) injunctive writs in whatever variant should only subsist under
the condonation doctrine, which at that time were primarily raising the condonation doctrine as his
considered "good law", and thus there was no grave defense. CA granted the petition and issued a TRO. rules of procedure duly promulgated by the Court given its
abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. sole prerogative over the same.
Ombudsman manifested that the TRO did not state
what act was being restrained and that since the
preventive suspension order had already been 2. NO. The Court found no legal authority to sustain the
served and implemented, there was no longer any condonation doctrine in this jurisdiction. As can be seen from
act to restrain. Thus, Binay, Jr. filed a petition for this discourse, it was a doctrine adopted from one class of US
contempt, accusing the Ombudsman et al., for rulings way back in 1959 and thus, out of touch from - and
willfully and maliciously ignoring the TRO. CA now rendered obsolete by - the current legal regime. In
consolidated the cases (Petition for Certiorari and consequence, it is high time for the Court to abandon the
Petition for Contempt). condonation doctrine that originated from Pascual, and
affirmed in the cases following the same, such as Aguinaldo,
Pending the CA proceeding, the Ombudsman filed Salalima, Mayor Garcia, and Governor Garcia, Jr. which were
the present Petition before the SC assailing CA's all relied upon by the CA.
grant, arguing that that no injunctive writ could be
issued to delay the Ombudsman's investigation It should, however, be clarified that this Court's abandonment
unless there is prima facie evidence that the of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in
subject matter thereof is outside the latter's application for the reason that judicial decisions applying or
jurisdiction (Section 14, RA 6770). However, later interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall
on, the CA rendered a decision granting Binay, form part of the legal system of the Philippines. xxx While the
Jr.'s prayer for a WPI, which further enjoined the future may ultimately uncover a doctrine's error, it should be,
implementation of the preventive suspension order.
Topic: Receivership

Spouses Trinidad obtained a loan from
respondent Far East Bank to finance the
purchase of the Sta. Maria Ice Plant & Cold
Storage in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The loan was
secured by a mortgage over the ice plant and
the land on which the ice plant stands.
Petitioner spouses failed to pay their loan. The
bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage
and later took possession of the property as
the highest bidder.
The guiding principle in a petition for W/N Receivership was
Mercado, Hilary 1. Commodities Storage vs. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 439 Receivership is the prevention of imminent Petitioners filed a Petition for Receivership
danger to the property. alleging that the bank has failed to take care of proper
the ice plant with due diligence such that the
plant has started emitting ammonia and other
toxic refrigerant chemicals into the
atmosphere and was posing a hazard to the
health of the people in the community. They
also alleged that "drastic sanctions" may be
brought against petitioners due to their
inability to pay their employees and creditors
as a result of "the numbing manner by which
respondent bank took the ice plant".
A judgment debt was issued in favor of Phil
Trust against respondent FM Yaptico.
Execution was denied because of Yaptico's
appeal to SC. But even after SC affirmed the
judgment debt and execution was issued, PHil
Mandamus can be issued to compel the Trust could not be paid because Yaptico made
lower court to appoint a receiver to it appear that it had no prop to satisfy the
protect and preserve defendant's property debt. Upon investigation, it was shown that Whether mandamus
and assets for the use and benefit of its Yaptico was disposing of its properties to the can issue to compel
Pioquinto 2. Philippine Trust Company vs. Santamaria, 53 Phil. 463 creditors, upon showing that a judgment damage of Phil Trust as creditor. Phil Trust lower court to appoint
debt has yet to be paid and defendant was applied for receivership of Yapticos prop to receiver.
able to defeat plaintiff's right to collect by preserve it so that the debt may be paid.
unduly delaying the same for so long a However, Lower court denied application to
period. give Yaptico more time to pay, despite the
execution of judgment debt having been
already delayed for 2 yrs from lower court
ruling and 1 year from affirmation of SC. Phil
Trust filed a petition for mandamus before SC
to compel lower court to appoint receiver.
Leo Enterprises was placed under receivership
and the assigned receiver was Atty. Pajarillo.
Leo Enterprise had an outstanding obligation
to Pacific Merchandising Corporation for the
materials used to construct the Paris Theatre. Whether or not Atty.
Pajarillo, without authority of the court paid Pajarillo is liable for the
Quintana 3. Pacific Merchandising Corp. Vs. Consolacion Insurance, 73 SCRA 564 A receiver is an officer of the court and he partially Pacific and thereafter entered into a unpaid amount claimed
must act under the supervision and order surety bond and indemnity contract with by Pacific
of the court. As the agent of the court, all Consolacion to secure the payment of the Merchandising
of his acts must have the consent of the balance. Subsequently, Pajarillo claimed that
court. Unauthorized contracts of a receiver the receivership was terminated and he was
are not binding on the court in charged of no longer liable to pay Pacific or indemnify
receivership; they are considered as the Consolacion
receiver’s own contracts or personal
undertaking.
NO. In the instant case, the Court did not find the
necessity for the appointment of a receiver.
Petitioners have not sufficiently shown that the Sta.
Maria Ice Plant is in danger of disappearing or being
wasted and reduced to a "scrap heap." Neither have
they proven that the property has been materially
injured which necessitates its protection and
preservation. In fact, at the hearing on respondent
bank's motion to dismiss, respondent bank, through
counsel, manifested in open court that the leak in the
ice plant had already been remedied and that no
other leakages had been reported since. As to the
"drastic sanctions" that may be brought against
petitioners due to their inability to pay their
employees and creditors as a result of "the numbing
manner by which respondent bank took the ice plant",
the Court ruled that it does not concern the ice plant
itself. These claims are the personal liabilities of
petitioners themselves. They do not constitute
"material injury" to the ice plant.
The power to appoint a receiver must be exercised
with extreme caution. There must be a clear showing
of necessity therefor in order to save the plaintiff from
grave and irremediable loss or damage. It is only when
the circumstances so demand, either because there is
imminent danger that the property sought to be
placed in the hands of a receiver be lost or because
they run the risk of being impaired, endeavouring to
avoid that the injury thereby caused be greater than
the one sought to be avoided.
Yes, mandamus can issue because it is the duty of the
court to appoint a receiver for Yaptico to protect and
preserve its property and assets for the use and
benefit of its creditors and, in particular, this
petitioner, under the provisions of section 483 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The very fact that the
judgments in question were rendered on October 19,
1927, and that no part of them has yet been paid, and
that F. M. Yaptico & Co., Ltd., has so far been able to
defeat the petitioner in the collection of its judgments,
is a very strong and cogent reason why a receiver
should be appointed.
YES. Pajarillo is liable as he entered into the said
contract without authority from the courts. A receiver
is not an agent or representative of any party to an
action but an officer of the court exercising his
functions in the interest of neither plaintiff nor
defendant but for the common benefit of all the
parties. He performs duties subject to the control of
the Court. Strictly speaking, a receiver has not right or
power to make any contract binding the property or
fund in his custody or to pay out funds in his hands
without authority or approval of the court. The
custody of the receiver is the custody of the court.
 For one thing, a petition for receivership
under Section 1(b), Rule 59 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that the property
or fund subject of the action is in danger
of being lost, removed, or materially
injured, necessitating its protection or
Solis 4. Evelina Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 174354 (2010) preservation. Its object is the prevention
of imminent danger to the property. If the
action does not require such protection or
preservation, the remedy is not
receivership.
The court is authorized to appoint a
receiver for a corporation to protect and
Gavina 5. Centrals Sawmills vs. Alto Surety, GR No. L-24508 (1969) preserve its property for the use and
benefit of its creditors and others who may
have similar interest in the property.
For one thing, a petition for receivership under
Section 1(b), Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that the property or fund
subject of the action is in danger of being lost, Whether or not the CA
removed, or materially injured, necessitating erred in granting
its protection or preservation. Its object is the respondent Fidela’s
prevention of imminent danger to the application for
property. If the action does not require such receivership.
protection or preservation, the remedy is not
receivership.
Does the court have the
authority to appoint a
receiver of the property
of the jusdgement
debtor which are not
involved in the action.