Rem2 Case Digests || Rule 57 to 61: Provisional Remedies || Castro | Boco

G.R. No. 125027 August 12, 2002

ANITA MANGILA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and LORETA GUINA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner nita !angila is an e"porter o# sea #oods and doing $usiness under t%e name and
st&le o# 'ea#oods Products. Private respondent (oreta )uina is t%e President and )eneral
!anager o# ir '*i#t +nternational, a single registered proprietors%ip engaged in t%e #reig%t
#or*arding $usiness.
'ometime in ,anuar& 1-.., petitioner contracted t%e #reig%t #or*arding services o# private
respondent #or s%ipment o# petitioner/s products, suc% as cra$s, pra*ns and assorted 0s%es, to
)uam 12'3 *%ere petitioner maintains an outlet. Petitioner agreed to pa& private respondent
cas% on deliver&. 4n t%e 0rst s%ipment, petitioner re5uested #or seven da&s *it%in *%ic% to pa&
private respondent. 6o*ever, #or t%e ne"t t%ree s%ipments, !arc% 17, 27 and 81, 1-..,
petitioner #ailed to pa& private respondent s%ipping c%arges amounting to P19-, 876.-5.
Despite several demands, petitioner never paid private respondent. :%us, on ,une 19, 1-..,
private respondent 0led Civil Case ;o. 5.75 $e#ore t%e Regional :rial Court o# Pasa& Cit& #or
collection o# sum o# mone&.
4n ugust 1, 1-.., t%e s%eri< 0led %is '%eri</s Return s%o*ing t%at summons *as not served
on petitioner. :%e s%eri< #ound out #urt%er t%at petitioner %ad le#t t%e P%ilippines #or )uam.
:%us, on 'eptem$er 18, 1-.., construing petitioner/s departure #rom t%e P%ilippines as done
*it% intent to de#raud %er creditors, private respondent 0led a !otion #or Preliminar&
ttac%ment. 4n 'eptem$er 26, 1-.., t%e trial court issued an 4rder o# Preliminar&
ttac%ment against petitioner. :%e #ollo*ing da&, t%e trial court issued a =rit o# Preliminar&
ttac%ment.
:%e trial court granted t%e re5uest o# its s%eri< #or assistance #rom t%eir counterparts in R:C,
Pampanga. :%us, on 4cto$er 2., 1-.., '%eri< l#redo 'an !iguel o# R:C Pampanga served on
petitioner/s %ouse%old %elp in 'an >ernando, Pampanga, t%e ;otice o# (ev& *it% t%e 4rder,
?davit and Bond.
4n ;ovem$er 7, 1-.., petitioner 0led an 2rgent !otion to Disc%arge ttac%ment *it%out
su$mitting %ersel# to t%e @urisdiction o# t%e trial court. '%e pointed out t%at up to t%en, s%e %ad
not $een served a cop& o# t%e Complaint and t%e summons. 6ence, petitioner claimed t%e
court %ad not ac5uired @urisdiction over %er person.
:%e trial court granted t%e !otion to Disc%arge ttac%ment on ,anuar& 18, 1-.- upon 0ling o#
petitioner/s counterA$ond. :%e trial court, %o*ever, did not rule on t%e 5uestion o# @urisdiction
and on t%e validit& o# t%e *rit o# preliminar& attac%ment.
4n Decem$er 26, 1-.., private respondent applied #or an alias summons, *%ic% t%e trial court
issued on ,anuar& 1-, 1-.-. +t *as onl& on ,anuar& 26, 1-.- t%at summons *as 0nall& served
on petitioner.
4n >e$ruar& -, 1-.-, petitioner 0led a !otion to Dismiss t%e Complaint on t%e ground o#
improper venue. Private respondent/s invoice #or t%e #reig%t #or*arding service stipulates t%at
Bi# court litigation $ecomes necessar& to en#orce collection """ t%e agreed venue #or suc%
action is !aCati, !etro !anila.B :%e lo*er court, denied t%e !otion to Dismiss. Petitioner
eventuall& 0led %er ans*er.
4n ,une 26, 1-.-, t%e trial court issued an 4rder setting t%e preAtrial #or ,ul& 1., 1-.- at .:89
a.m. and re5uiring t%e parties to su$mit t%eir preAtrial $rie#s. !ean*%ile, private respondent
0led a !otion to 'ell ttac%ed Properties $ut t%e trial court denied t%e motion.
:%e R:C eventuall& decided t%e case in #avor o# )uina. :%e C a?rmed t%e R:C/s decision.
ISSUE
=%et%er t%e *rit o# attac%ment *as improperl& laid and served.
!EL"
Des.
Petitioner ascri$es several errors to t%e issuance and implementation o# t%e *rit o# attac%ment.
mong petitioner/s arguments are: 0rst, t%ere *as no ground #or t%e issuance o# t%e *rit since
t%e intent to de#raud %er creditors %ad not $een esta$lis%edE second, t%e value o# t%e
properties levied e"ceeded t%e value o# private respondent/s claim. 6o*ever, t%e cru" o#
petitioner/s arguments rests on t%e 5uestion o# t%e validit& o# t%e *rit o# attac%ment. Because
o# #ailure to serve summons on %er $e#ore or simultaneousl& *it% t%e *rit/s implementation,
petitioner claims t%at t%e trial court %ad not ac5uired @urisdiction over %er person and t%us t%e
service o# t%e *rit is void.
:%is Court %as long settled t%e issue o# *%en @urisdiction over t%e person o# t%e de#endant
s%ould $e ac5uired in cases *%ere a part& resorts to provisional remedies. part& to a suit
ma&, at an& time a#ter 0ling t%e complaint, avail o# t%e provisional remedies under t%e Rules o#
Court. 'peci0call&, Rule 57 on preliminar& attac%ment speaCs o# t%e grant o# t%e remed& "at
the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter." :%is p%rase re#ers to t%e
date o# 0ling o# t%e complaint *%ic% is t%e moment t%at marCs Bt%e commencement o# t%e
action.B :%e re#erence plainl& is to a time $e#ore summons is served on t%e de#endant, or even
$e#ore summons issues.
>urt%ermore, *e %ave %eld t%at t%e grant o# t%e provisional remed& o# attac%ment involves
t%ree stages: 0rst, t%e court issues t%e order granting t%e applicationE second, t%e *rit o#
attac%ment issues pursuant to t%e order granting t%e *ritE and t%ird, t%e *rit is
implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant be frst obtained. !o#$%$&, once the implementation of the
writ commences, t%e court must %ave ac5uired @urisdiction over t%e de#endant #or *it%out
suc% @urisdiction, t%e court %as no po*er and aut%orit& to act in an& manner against t%e
de#endant. n& order issuing #rom t%e Court *ill not $ind t%e de#endant.
+n t%e instant case, t%e =rit o# Preliminar& ttac%ment *as issued on 'eptem$er 27, 1-.. and
implemented on 4cto$er 2., 1-... However, the alias summons was served only on
January 2', 1! or almost three months after the implementation of the writ of
attachment.
:%e trial court %ad t%e aut%orit& to issue t%e =rit o# ttac%ment on 'eptem$er 27 since a
motion #or its issuance can $e 0led Bat t%e commencement o# t%e action.B 6o*ever, on t%e da&
t%e *rit *as implemented, t%e trial court s%ould %ave, previousl& or simultaneousl& *it% t%e
implementation o# t%e *rit, ac5uired @urisdiction over t%e petitioner. Det, as *as s%o*n in t%e
records o# t%e case, t%e summons *as actuall& served on petitioner several mont%s a#ter t%e
*rit %ad $een implemented.
Private respondent, nevert%eless, claims t%at t%e prior or contemporaneous service o#
summons contemplated in 'ection 5 o# Rule 57 provides #or e"ceptions. mong suc%
e"ceptions are B*%ere t%e summons could not $e served personall& or $& su$stituted service
despite diligent e<orts or *%ere t%e de#endant is a resident temporaril& a$sent t%ere#rom " "
".B Private respondent asserts t%at *%en s%e commenced t%is action, s%e tried to serve
summons on petitioner $ut t%e latter could not $e located at %er customar& address in
Famuning, GueHon Cit& or at %er ne* address in )uagua, Pampanga. >urt%ermore, respondent
claims t%at petitioner *as not even in PampangaE rat%er, s%e *as in )uam purportedl& on a
$usiness trip.
Private respondent never s%o*ed t%at s%e e<ected su$stituted service on petitioner a#ter %er
personal service #ailed. (iCe*ise, i# it *ere true t%at private respondent could not ascertain t%e
*%erea$outs o# petitioner a#ter a diligent in5uir&, still s%e %ad some ot%er recourse under t%e
Rules o# Civil Procedure.
:%e rules provide #or certain remedies in cases *%ere personal service could not $e e<ected on
a part&. 'ection 17, Rule 17 o# t%e Rules o# Court provides t%at *%enever t%e de#endant/s
B*%erea$outs are unCno*n and cannot $e ascertained $& diligent in5uir&, service ma&, $&
leave o# court, $e e<ected upon %im $& pu$lication in a ne*spaper o# general circulation " " ".B
:%us, i# petitioner/s *%erea$outs could not $e ascertained a#ter t%e s%eri< %ad served t%e
summons at %er given address, t%en respondent could %ave immediatel& asCed t%e court #or
service o# summons $& pu$lication on petitioner.
!oreover, as private respondent also claims t%at petitioner *as a$road at t%e time o# t%e
service o# summons, t%is made petitioner a resident *%o is temporaril& out o# t%e countr&. :%is
Rem2 Case Digests || Rule 57 to 61: Provisional Remedies || Castro | Boco
is t%e e"act situation contemplated in 'ection 16, Rule 17 o# t%e Rules o# Civil Procedure,
providing #or service o# summons $& pu$lication.
+n conclusion, *e %old t%at t%e alias summons $elatedl& served on petitioner cannot $e
deemed to %ave cured t%e #atal de#ect in t%e en#orcement o# t%e *rit. :%e trial court cannot
en#orce suc% a coercive process on petitioner *it%out 0rst o$taining @urisdiction over %er
person. :%e preliminar& *rit o# attac%ment must $e served a#ter or simultaneous *it% t%e
service o# summons on t%e de#endant *%et%er $& personal service, su$stituted service or $&
pu$lication as *arranted $& t%e circumstances o# t%e case. :%e su$se5uent service o#
summons does not con#er a retroactive ac5uisition o# @urisdiction over %er person $ecause t%e
la* does not allo* #or retroactivit& o# a $elated service.
G.R. No. 15'5(0 )un$ 1*, 200*
LU+ "U, petitioner,
vs.
STRONG!OL" INSURANCE P&o,u-gat$d CO., INC., respondent.
FACTS
urora 4larte de (eon *as t%e registered o*ner o# (ot ;o. 19A 1(RC Psd 8868663 per :rans#er
Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 5.2I:A8. 'ometime in ,anuar& 1-.-, De (eon sold t%e propert& to (uH Du
under a JConditional Deed o# 'ale/ *%erein said vendee paid a do*n pa&ment o# P75,999.99
leaving a $alance o#P-5,999.99.
:%en again, on pril 2., 1-.-, urora de (eon sold Kt%eL same propert& to spouses Mnri5ue and
Rosita Cali*ag *it%out prior notice to (uH Du. s a result, :rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 5.2I:A
8 *as cancelled and :rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 2299 *as issued in #avor o# t%e Cali*ag
spouses.
!ean*%ile, 'trong%old +nsurance Corp., +nc. " " " commenced Civil Case ;o. -9A1.7. against
spouses Rosita and Mnri5ue Cali*ag et al., #or allegedl& de#rauding St&ong.o-d and
misappropriating t%e compan&/s #und $& #alsi#&ing and simulating purc%ases o# documentar&
stamps. :%e action *as accompanied $& a pra&er #or a *rit o# preliminar& attac%ment dul&
annotated at t%e $acC o# :rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 2299 on ugust 7, 1--9.
4n %er part, on Decem$er 21, 1--9, (uH Du initiated Civil Case ;o. 6981- against urora de
(eon and t%e spouses Cali*ag #or t%e annulment o# t%e sale $& De (eon in #avor o# t%e
Cali*ags, anc%ored on t%e earlier mentioned Deed o# Conditional 'ale.
4n ,anuar& 8, 1--1, (uH Du caused t%e annotation o# a ;otice 4# (is Pendens at t%e $acC o#
:rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 2299.
4n >e$ruar& 11, 1--1, 'trong%old received a #avora$le @udgment against t%e Cali*ag spouses.
=%en t%e decision $ecame 0nal and e"ecutor&, on !arc% 12, 1--1, a notice o# lev& on
e"ecution *as annotated on :rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 2299 and t%e attac%ed propert&
*as sold in a pu$lic auction. 4n KugustL 5, 1--1, t%e certi0cate o# sale and t%e 0nal Deed o#
'ale in #avor o# St&ong.o-d *ere inscri$ed and annotated leading to t%e cancellation o#
:rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 2299 and in lieu t%ereo#, :rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 6777
*as issued in t%e name o# St&ong.o-d.
ugust 5, 1--2, (uH Du too *as a$le to secure a #avora$le @udgment in Civil Case ;o. 6981-
and *%ic% $ecame 0nal and e"ecutor& sometime in 1--8, as *ell.
2nder t%e a$ove %istorical $acCdrop, (uH Du commenced t%e present case 1docCeted as Civil
Case ;o. 676753 to cancel :rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 6777 in t%e name
o# St&ong.o-d *it% damages claiming priorit& rig%ts over t%e propert& $& virtue o# %er ;otice
4# (is Pendens under Mntr& ;o. 18895 and inscri$ed on ,anuar& 8, 1--1, and t%e 0nal and
e"ecutor& decision in Civil Case ;o. 6981- s%e 0led against spouses Mnri5ue and Rosita
Cali*ag. ccording to (uH Du, despite %er said notice o# lis pendens annotated,St&ong.o-d still
proceeded *it% t%e e"ecution o# t%e decision in Civil Case ;o. -9A1.7. against t%e su$@ect lot
and ultimatel& t%e issuance o# :rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle ;o. 6777 in its 1St&ong.o-d/s3 name.
:%e trial court and t%e Court o# ppeals $ot% ruled t%at 'trong%old %ad superior rig%ts over t%e
propert& $ecause o# t%e prior registration o# t%e latter/s notice o# lev& on attac%ment on
:rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle 1:C:3 ;o. 2299 A 'trong%old/s notice o# lev& on attac%ment %ad $een
registered almost 0ve 153 mont%s before petitioner/s notice o# lis pendens. 6ence, respondent
en@o&ed priorit& in time. 'uc% registration, t%e appellate court added, constituted constructive
notice to petitioner and all t%ird persons #rom t%e time o# 'trong%old/s entr&, as provided under
t%e (and Registration ct AA no* t%e Propert& Registration Decree.
ISSUE
=%et%er a ;otice o# (ev& on ttac%ment on t%e propert& is a superior lien over t%at o# t%e
unregistered rig%t o# a $u&er o# a propert& in possession pursuant to a Deed o# Conditional
'ale.
!EL"
Des.
Petitioner su$mits t%at %er unregistered rig%t over t%e propert& $& *a& o# a prior conditional
sale in 1-.- en@o&s pre#erence over t%e lien o# 'trong%old AA a lien t%at *as created $& t%e
registration o# respondent/s lev& on attac%ment in 1--9. !aintaining t%at t%e ruling
in Capistrano v. PNB *as improperl& applied $& t%e Court o# ppeals, petitioner avers t%at
unliCe t%e circumstances in t%at case, t%e propert& %erein %ad $een sold to %erbefore t%e lev&.
=e do not agree.
:%e pre#erence given to a dul& registered lev& on attac%ment or e"ecution over a prior
unregistered sale is *ellAsettled in our @urisdiction. +ndeed, t%e su$se5uent sale o# t%e propert&
to t%e attac%ing creditor must, o# necessit&, retroact to t%e date o# t%e lev&. 4t%er*ise, t%e
pre#erence created $& t%e lev& *ould $e meaningless and illusor&, as reiterated in Defensor v.
Brillo:
B" " ". :%e doctrine is *ellAsettled t%at a lev& on e"ecution dul& registered taCes
pre#erence over a prior unregistered saleE and t%at even i# t%e prior sale is
su$se5uentl& registered $e#ore t%e sale in e"ecution $ut a#ter t%e lev& *as dul&
made, t%e validit& o# t%e e"ecution sale s%ould $e maintained, $ecause it retroacts to
t%e date o# t%e lev&E ot%er*ise, t%e pre#erence created $& t%e lev& *ould $e
meaningless and illusor&.
BMven assuming, t%ere#ore, t%at t%e entr& o# appellants/ sales in t%e $ooCs o# t%e
Register o# Deeds on ;ovem$er 5, 1-7- operated to conve& t%e lands to t%em even
*it%out t%e corresponding entr& in t%e o*ner/s duplicate titles, the levy on execution
on the same lots in Civil Case No. 1182 on Auust !" 1#$#" and their subse%uent sale
to appellee Brillo &'hich retroacts to the date of the levy( still ta)es precedence over
and must be preferred to appellants* deeds of sale 'hich 'ere reistered only on
November +" 1#$#.
B:%is result is a necessar& conse5uence o# t%e #act t%at t%e properties %erein
involved *ere dul& registered under ct ;o. 7-6, and o# t%e #undamental principle
t%at registration is t%e operative act t%at conve&s and $inds lands covered $& :orrens
titles 1sections 59, 51, ct 7-63. 6ence, i# appellants $ecame o*ners o# t%e
properties in 5uestion $& virtue o# t%e recording o# t%e conve&ances in t%eir #avor,
t%eir title arose alread& su$@ect to t%e lev& in #avor o# t%e appellee, *%ic% %ad $een
noted a%ead in t%e records o# t%e Register o# Deeds.B 1Citations omitted, italics
supplied3
s t%e propert& in t%is case *as covered $& t%e torrens s&stem, t%e registration o# 'trong%old/s
attac%ment *as t%e operative act t%at gave validit& to t%e trans#er and created a lien upon t%e
land in #avor o# respondent.
:%e pre#erence created $& t%e lev& on attac%ment is not diminis%ed even $& t%e su$se5uent
registration o# t%e prior sale. :%at *as t%e import o# Capistrano v. PNB, *%ic% %eld t%at
precedence s%ould $e given to a lev& on attac%ment or e"ecution, *%ose registration
*as before t%at o# t%e prior sale.
+n Capistrano, t%e sale o# t%e land in 5uestion AA t%oug% made as #ar $acC as 1-76 AA *as
registered onl& in 1-58, a#ter t%e propert& %ad alread& $een su$@ected to a lev& on e"ecution
$& t%e P%ilippine ;ational BanC. :%e present case is not muc% di<erent. :%e stipulation o# #acts
s%o*s t%at 'trong%old %ad alread& registered its lev& on attac%ment $e#ore petitioner
annotated %er notice o# lis pendens. s in Capistrano, s%e invoCes t%e alleged superior rig%t o#
a prior unregistered $u&er to overcome respondent/s lien.
Rem2 Case Digests || Rule 57 to 61: Provisional Remedies || Castro | Boco
+# eit%er t%e t%irdApart& claim or t%e su$se5uent registration o# t%e prior sale *as insu?cient to
de#eat t%e previousl& registered attac%ment lien, as ruled $& t%e Court in Capistrano, it #ollo*s
t%at a notice o# lis pendens is liCe*ise insu?cient #or t%e same purpose. 'uc% notice does not
esta$lis% a lien or an encum$rance on t%e propert& a<ected. s t%e name suggests, a notice
o# lis pendens *it% respect to a disputed propert& is intended merel& to in#orm t%ird persons
t%at an& o# t%eir transactions in connection t%ere*it% AA i# entered into su$se5uent to t%e
notation AA *ould $e su$@ect to t%e result o# t%e suit.
G.R. No. 1''75/ No%$,0$& 25, 200/
SOFIA TORRES, FRUCTOSA TORRES, !EIRS OF MARIO TORRES and SOLAR
RESOURCES, INC.,Petitioners,
vs.
NICANOR SATSATIN, EMILIN"A AUSTRIA SATSATIN, NI11I NORMEL SATSATIN and
NI11I NORLIN SATSATIN, Respondents.
FACTS
:%e si$lings 'o0a :orres 1'o0a3, >ructosa :orres 1>ructosa3, and !ario :orres 1!ario3 eac% o*n
ad@acent 29,999 s5uare meters tracC o# land situated at Barrio (anCaan, DasmariNas, Cavite,
covered $& :rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle 1:C:3 ;os. 251267, 251266, and 251265, respectivel&.
'ometime in 1--7, ;icanor 'atsatin *as aut%oriHed $& petitioners, t%roug% a 'pecial Po*er o#
ttorne&, to negotiate #or t%e sale o# t%e properties.
'ometime in 1---, ;icanor o<ered to sell t%e properties to 'olar Resources, +nc. 1'olar3. 'olar
allegedl& agreed to purc%ase t%e t%ree parcels o# land, toget%er *it% t%e 19,999As5uareAmeter
propert& o*ned $& a certain Rustica ledia, #or P85,999,999.99. Petitioners alleged t%at
;icanor *as supposed to remit to t%em t%e total amount o#P2.,999,999.99 or P-,888,888.99
eac% to 'o0a, >ructosa, and t%e %eirs o# !ario.
Petitioners claimed t%at 'olar %as alread& paid t%e entire purc%ase price o# P85,999,999.99 to
;icanor in :%irt&A:*o 1823 postAdated c%ecCs. 6o*ever, not*it%standing t%e receipt o# t%e
entire pa&ment #or t%e su$@ect propert&, ;icanor onl& remitted t%e total amount
o# P-,999,999.99, leaving an unremitted $alance o# P1-,999,999.99. Despite repeated ver$al
and *ritten demands, ;icanor #ailed to remit to t%em t%e $alance o# P1-,999,999.99.
Conse5uentl&, on 4cto$er 25, 2992, petitioners 0led $e#ore t%e regional trial court 1R:C3 a
Complaint #or sum o# mone& and damages, against ;icanor, Mrmilinda 'atsatin, ;iCCi ;ormel
'atsatin, and ;iCCi ;orlin 'atsatin.
4n 4cto$er 89, 2992, petitioners 0led an M"AParte !otion #or t%e +ssuance o# a =rit o#
ttac%ment, alleging among ot%er t%ings: t%at respondents are a$out to depart t%e P%ilippinesE
t%at t%e& %ave properties, real and personal in !etro !anila and in t%e near$& provincesE t%at
t%e amount due t%em is P1-,999,999.99 a$ove all ot%er claimsE t%at t%ere is no ot%er su?cient
securit& #or t%e claim soug%t to $e en#orcedE and t%at t%e& are *illing to post a $ond 0"ed $&
t%e court to ans*er #or all costs *%ic% ma& $e ad@udged to t%e respondents and all damages
*%ic% respondents ma& sustain $& reason o# t%e attac%ment pra&ed #or, i# it s%all $e 0nall&
ad@udged t%at petitioners are not entitled t%ereto.
4n 4cto$er 89, 2992, t%e trial court issued an 4rder directing t%e petitioners to post a $ond in
t%e amount o#P7,999,999.99 $e#ore t%e court issues t%e *rit o# attac%ment.
:%erea#ter, t%e R:C issued a =rit o# ttac%ment dated ;ovem$er 15, 2992, directing t%e s%eri<
to attac% t%e estate, real or personal.
4n ;ovem$er 1-, 2992, a cop& o# t%e *rit o# attac%ment *as served upon t%e respondents. 4n
t%e same date, t%e s%eri< levied t%e real and personal properties o# t%e respondent, including
%ouse%old appliances, cars, and a parcel o# land located at (as PiNas, !anila.
4n ;ovem$er 21, 2992, summons, toget%er *it% a cop& o# t%e complaint, *as served upon t%e
respondents.
4n ;ovem$er 2-, 2992, respondents 0led t%eir ns*er toget%er *it% a !otion to Disc%arge
=rit o# ttac%ment. Respondents argued t%at t%e su$@ect *rit *as improper and irregular
%aving $een issued and en#orced *it%out t%e lo*er court ac5uiring @urisdiction over t%e
persons o# t%e respondents. :%e& maintained t%at t%e *rit o# attac%ment *as implemented
*it%out serving upon t%em t%e summons toget%er *it% t%e complaint. :%e& also argued t%at
t%e $ond issued in #avor o# t%e petitioners *as de#ective, $ecause t%e $onding compan& #ailed
to o$tain t%e proper clearance t%at it can transact $usiness *it% t%e R:C o# DasmariNas, Cavite.
:%e& added t%at t%e various clearances *%ic% *ere issued in #avor o# t%e $onding compan&
*ere applica$le onl& in t%e courts o# t%e cities o# Pasa&, Pasig, !anila, and !aCati, $ut not in
t%e R:C, +mus, Cavite.
:%e R:C ruled in #avor o# %erein petitioners, %o*ever, t%e C overturned t%e lo*er court/s
ruling and rendered t%e assailed Decision in #avor o# t%e respondents, li#ting t%e =rit o#
ttac%ment issued $& t%e lo*er court.
Rem2 Case Digests || Rule 57 to 61: Provisional Remedies || Castro | Boco
ISSUE
=%et%er t%e order o# t%e C t%at =rit o# ttac%ment issued $& t%e lo*er court *as proper.
!EL"
Des.
Petitioners maintain t%at in t%e case at $ar, as in t%e case o# >CD Construction )roup, +nc. v.
Court o# ppeals, t%e onl& *a& t%e su$@ect *rit o# attac%ment can $e dissolved is $& a counterA
$ond. :%e& claim t%at t%e respondents are not allo*ed to 0le a motion to dissolve t%e
attac%ment under 'ection 18, Rule 57 o# t%e Rules o# Court. 4t%er*ise, t%e %earing on t%e
motion #or t%e dissolution o# t%e *rit *ould $e tantamount to a trial on t%e merits, considering
t%at t%e *rit o# preliminar& attac%ment *as issued upon a ground *%ic% is, at t%e same time,
t%e applicant/s cause o# action. Petitioners are *rong.
+n t%e case at $ar, t%e C correctl& #ound t%at t%ere *as grave a$use o# discretion amounting
to lacC o# or in e"cess o# @urisdiction on t%e part o# t%e trial court in approving t%e $ond posted
$& petitioners despite t%e #act t%at not all t%e re5uisites #or its approval *ere complied *it%. +n
accepting a suret& $ond, it is necessar& t%at all t%e re5uisites #or its approval are metE
ot%er*ise, t%e $ond s%ould $e re@ected.
Mver& $ond s%ould $e accompanied $& a clearance #rom t%e 'upreme Court s%o*ing t%at t%e
compan& concerned is 5uali0ed to transact $usiness *%ic% is valid onl& #or t%irt& 1893 da&s
#rom t%e date o# its issuance. 6o*ever, it is apparent t%at t%e Certi0cation issued $& t%e 4?ce
o# t%e Court dministrator 14C3 at t%e time t%e $ond *as issued *ould clearl& s%o* t%at t%e
$onds o<ered $& =estern )uarant& Corporation ma& $e accepted onl& in t%e R:Cs o# t%e cities
o# !aCati, Pasa&, and Pasig. :%ere#ore, t%e suret& $ond issued $& t%e $onding compan& s%ould
not %ave $een accepted $& t%e R:C o# DasmariNas, Branc% -9, since t%e certi0cation secured
$& t%e $onding compan& #rom t%e 4C at t%e time o# t%e issuance o# t%e $ond certi0ed t%at it
ma& onl& $e accepted in t%e a$oveAmentioned cities. :%us, t%e trial court acted *it% grave
a$use o# discretion amounting to lacC o# or in e"cess o# @urisdiction *%en it issued t%e *rit o#
attac%ment #ounded on t%e said $ond.
!oreover, in provisional remedies, particularl& t%at o# preliminar& attac%ment, t%e distinction
$et*een t%e issuance and t%e implementation o# t%e *rit o# attac%ment is o# utmost
importance to t%e validit& o# t%e *rit. :%e distinction is indispensa$l& necessar& to determine
*%en @urisdiction over t%e person o# t%e de#endant s%ould $e ac5uired in order to validl&
implement t%e *rit o# attac%ment upon %is person.
:%is Court %as long put to rest t%e issue o# *%en @urisdiction over t%e person o# t%e de#endant
s%ould $e ac5uired in cases *%ere a part& resorts to provisional remedies. part& to a suit
ma&, at an& time a#ter 0ling t%e complaint, avail o# t%e provisional remedies under t%e Rules o#
Court.
+n Cuartero v. Court o# ppeals, t%is Court %eld t%at t%e grant o# t%e provisional remed& o#
attac%ment involves t%ree stages: 0rst, t%e court issues t%e order granting t%e applicationE
second, t%e *rit o# attac%ment issues pursuant to t%e order granting t%e *ritE and t%ird, t%e
*rit is implemented. >or t%e initial t*o stages, it is not necessar& t%at @urisdiction over t%e
person o# t%e de#endant $e 0rst o$tained. 6o*ever, once t%e implementation o# t%e *rit
commences, t%e court must %ave ac5uired @urisdiction over t%e de#endant, #or *it%out suc%
@urisdiction, t%e court %as no po*er and aut%orit& to act in an& manner against t%e de#endant.
n& order issuing #rom t%e Court *ill not $ind t%e de#endant.
:%us, it is indispensa$le not onl& #or t%e ac5uisition o# @urisdiction over t%e person o# t%e
de#endant, $ut also upon consideration o# #airness, to apprise t%e de#endant o# t%e complaint
against %im and t%e issuance o# a *rit o# preliminar& attac%ment and t%e grounds t%ere#or t%at
prior or contemporaneousl& to t%e serving o# t%e *rit o# attac%ment, service o# summons,
toget%er *it% a cop& o# t%e complaint, t%e application #or attac%ment, t%e applicant/s a?davit
and $ond, and t%e order must $e served upon %im.
+n t%e instant case, assuming arguendo t%at t%e trial court validl& issued t%e *rit o# attac%ment
on ;ovem$er 15, 2992, *%ic% *as implemented on ;ovem$er 1-, 2992, it is to $e noted t%at
t%e summons, toget%er *it% a cop& o# t%e complaint, *as served onl& on ;ovem$er 21, 2992.
t t%e time t%e trial court issued t%e *rit o# attac%ment on ;ovem$er 15, 2992, it can validl& to
do so since t%e motion #or its issuance can $e 0led Bat t%e commencement o# t%e action or at
an& time $e#ore entr& o# @udgment.B 6o*ever, at t%e time t%e *rit *as implemented, t%e trial
court %as not ac5uired @urisdiction over t%e persons o# t%e respondent since no summons *as
&et served upon t%em.
G.R. No. 1*1(52 F$0&ua&3 7, 2001
TERESITA 4. I"OLOR, petitioner,
vs.
!ON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. GUMERSIN"O "E GU+MAN and ILUMINA"A "E
GU+MAN and !ON. PRU"ENCIO A. CASTILLO, )R., P&$s5d5ng )udg$, R$g5ona- T&5a-
Cou&t, Nat5ona- Ca65ta- )ud575a- R$g5on, 8&an7. 220, 9u$:on C5t3, respondents.
FACTS
4n !arc% 21, 1--7, to secure a loan o# P529,999.99, petitioner :eresita +dolor e"ecuted in #avor
o# private respondent )umersindo De )uHman a Deed o# Real Mstate !ortgage *it% rig%t o#
e"traA@udicial #oreclosure upon #ailure to redeem t%e mortgage on or $e#ore 'eptem$er 29,
1--7. :%e o$@ect o# said mortgage is a 299As5uare meter propert& *it% improvements located
at Baranga& Ramon !agsa&sa&, GueHon Cit&.
4n 'eptem$er 21, 1--6, private respondent +luminada de )uHman, *i#e o# )umersindo de
)uHman, 0led a complaint against petitioner +dolor $e#ore t%e 4?ce o# t%e Baranga& Captain o#
Baranga& Ramon !agsa&sa&, GueHon Cit&, *%ic% resulted in a BFasunduang PagAaa&osB
*%erein +dolor asCed #or a -9Ada& grace period to settle t%e 5uestioned amount and t%at #ailure
to settle it on or $e#ore Decem$er 21, 1--6 *ould result to an e"ecution o# a deed o# sale *it%
t%e agreement to repurc%ase *it%out interest *it%in one &ear in #avor o# private respondents.
Petitioner #ailed to compl& *it% %er undertaCingE t%us private respondent )umersindo 0led a
motion #or e"ecution $e#ore t%e 4?ce o# t%e Baranga& captain *%o su$se5uentl& issued a
certi0cation to 0le action.
4n !arc% 21, 1--7, respondent )umersindo De )uHman 0led an e"tra @udicial #oreclosure o#
t%e real estate mortgage pursuant to t%e parties agreement set #ort% in t%e real estate
mortgage dated !arc% 21, 1--7.
4n !a& 28, 1--7, t%e mortgaged propert& *as sold in a pu$lic auction to respondent
)umersindo, as t%e %ig%est $idder and conse5uentl&, t%e '%eri<Os Certi0cate o# 'ale *as
registered *it% t%e Registr& o# Deeds o# GueHon Cit& on ,une 28, 1--7.
4n ,une 25, 1--., petitioner 0led *it% t%e Regional :rial Court o# GueHon Cit&, Branc% 229, a
complaint #or annulment o# '%eri<Os Certi0cate o# 'ale *it% pra&er #or t%e issuance o# a
temporar& restraining order 1:R43 and a *rit o# preliminar& in@unction against private
respondents, Deput& '%eri<s !arino Cac%ero and Rodol#o (escano and t%e Registr& o# Deeds o#
GueHon Cit& alleging among ot%ers alleged irregularit& and lacC o# notice in t%e e"traA@udicial
#oreclosure proceedings su$@ect o# t%e real estate mortgage. +n t%e meantime, a temporar&
restraining order *as issued $& t%e trial court.
4n ,ul& 2., 1--., t%e trial court issued a *rit o# preliminar& in@unction en@oining private
respondents, t%e Deput& '%eri<s and t%e Registr& o# Deeds o# GueHon Cit& #rom causing t%e
issuance o# a 0nal deed o# sale and consolidation o# o*ners%ip o# t%e su$@ect propert& in #avor
o# t%e De )uHman spouses.
'pouses de )uHman 0led *it% t%e respondent Court o# ppeals a petition #or certiorari seeCing
annulment o# t%e trial courtOs order dated ,ul& 2., 1--. *%ic% granted t%e issuance o# a
preliminar& in@unction. 4n 'eptem$er 2., 1---, t%e respondent court granted t%e petition and
annulled t%e assailed *rit o# preliminar& in@unction. :eresita +dolor 0led %er motion #or
reconsideration *%ic% *as denied in a resolution dated >e$ruar& 7, 2999.
6ence, t%is petition #or revie* on certiorari. Petitioner claims t%at %er proprietar& rig%t over t%e
su$@ect parcel o# land *as not &et lost since %er rig%t to redeem t%e su$@ect land #or a period o#
one &ear %ad neit%er lapsed nor run as t%e s%eri<Os certi0cate o# sale *as null and voidE t%at
petitioner and t%e general pu$lic %ave not $een validl& noti0ed o# t%e auction sale conducted
$& respondent s%eri<sE t%at t%e ne*spaper utiliHed in t%e pu$lication o# t%e notice o# sale *as
not a ne*spaper o# general circulation.
Rem2 Case Digests || Rule 57 to 61: Provisional Remedies || Castro | Boco
ISSUE
=%et%er t%e C erred in 0nding t%at t%e trial court committed grave a$use o# discretion in
en@oining t%e private and pu$lic respondents #rom causing t%e issuance o# a 0nal deed o# sale
and consolidation o# o*ners%ip o# t%e su$@ect parcel o# land in #avor o# private respondents.
!EL"
;o, t%e 'C agrees *it% t%e C.
+n@unction is a preservative remed& aimed at protecting su$stantive rig%ts and interests. Be#ore
an in@unction can $e issued, it is essential t%at t%e #ollo*ing re5uisites $e present: 13 t%ere
must $e arig%t in esse or t%e e"istence o# a rig%t to $e protectedE 23 t%e act against *%ic% t%e
in@unction is to $e directed is a violation o# suc% rig%t. 6ence t%e e"istence o# a rig%t violated, is
a prere5uisite to t%e granting o# an in@unction. +n@unction is not designed to protect contingent
or #uture rig%ts. >ailure to esta$lis% eit%er t%e e"istence o# a clear and positive rig%t *%ic%
s%ould $e @udiciall& protected t%roug% t%e *rit o# in@unction or t%at t%e de#endant %as
committed or %as attempted to commit an& act *%ic% %as endangered or tends to endanger
t%e e"istence o# said rig%t, is a su?cient ground #or den&ing t%e in@unction. :%e controlling
reason #or t%e e"istence o# t%e @udicial po*er to issue t%e *rit is t%at t%e court ma& t%ere$&
prevent a t%reatened or continuous irremedia$le in@ur& to some o# t%e parties $e#ore t%eir
claims can $e t%oroug%l& investigated and advisedl& ad@udicated. +t is to $e resorted to onl&
*%en t%ere is a pressing necessit& to avoid in@urious conse5uences *%ic% cannot $e remedied
under an& standard o# compensation.
+n t%e instant case, *e agree *it% t%e respondent Court t%at petitioner %as no more proprietar&
rig%t to speaC o# over t%e #oreclosed propert& to entitle %er to t%e issuance o# a *rit o#
in@unction. +t appears t%at t%e mortgaged propert& *as sold in a pu$lic auction to private
respondent )umersindo on !a& 28, 1--7 and t%e s%eri<Os certi0cate o# sale *as registered
*it% t%e Registr& o# Deeds o# GueHon Cit& on ,une 28, 1--7. Petitioner %ad one &ear #rom t%e
registration o# t%e s%eri<Os sale to redeem t%e propert& $ut s%e #ailed to e"ercise %er rig%t on or
$e#ore ,une 28, 1--., t%us spouses de )uHman are no* entitled to a conve&ance and
possession o# t%e #oreclosed propert&. =%en petitioner 0led %er complaint #or annulment o#
s%eri<Os sale against private respondents *it% pra&er #or t%e issuance o# a *rit o# preliminar&
in@unction on ,une 25, 1--., s%e #ailed to s%o* su?cient interest or title in t%e propert& soug%t
to $e protected as %er rig%t o# redemption %ad alread& e"pired on ,une 28, 1--., i.e. t*o 123
da&s $e#ore t%e 0ling o# t%e complaint. +t is al*a&s a ground #or den&ing in@unction t%at t%e
part& seeCing it %as insu?cient title or interest to sustain it, and no claim to t%e ultimate relie#
soug%t A in ot%er *ords, t%at s%e s%o*s no e5uit&. :%e possi$ilit& o# irrepara$le damage *it%out
proo# o# actual e"isting rig%t is not aground #or an in@unction.
Petitioner ne"t contends t%at t%e e"ecution o# t%e BFasunduang PagAaa&osB dated 'eptem$er
21, 1--6 $et*een %er and spouses de )uHman $e#ore t%e 4?ce o# t%e (upon :agapama&apa
s%o*ed t%e e"press and une5uivocal intention o# t%e parties to novate or modi#& t%e real
estate mortgage. Petitioner insists t%at t%e BFasunduang PagAaa&osB *as not a mere
promissor& note contrar& to respondent courtOs conclusion since it *as entered $& t%e parties
$e#ore t%e (upon :agapama&apa *%ic% %as t%e e<ect o# a 0nal @udgment.
=e are not persuaded.
;ovation is t%e e"tinguis%ment o# an o$ligation $& t%e su$stitution or c%ange o# t%e o$ligation
$& a su$se5uent one *%ic% terminates it, eit%er $& c%anging its o$@ects or principal conditions,
or $& su$stituting a ne* de$tor in place o# t%e old one, or $& su$rogating a t%ird person to t%e
rig%ts o# t%e creditor. 2nder t%e la*, novation is never presumed. :%e parties to a contract
must e"pressl& agree t%at t%e& are a$rogating t%eir old contract in #avor o# a ne*
one. ccordingl&, it *as %eld t%at no novation o# a contract %ad occurred *%en t%e ne*
agreement entered into $et*een t%e parties *as intended to give li#e to t%e old one.
revie* o# t%e BFasunduang PagAaa&osB *%ic% is 5uoted earlier does not support petitionerOs
contention t%at it novated t%e real estate mortgage since t%e *ill to novate did not appear $&
e"press agreement o# t%e parties nor t%e old and t%e ne* contracts *ere incompati$le in air
points. +n #act, petitioner e"pressl& recogniHed in t%e Fasunduan t%e e"istence and t%e validit&
o# t%e old o$ligation *%ere s%e acCno*ledged %er long overdue account since 'eptem$er 29,
1--7 *%ic% *as secured $& a real estate mortgage and asCed #or a ninet& 1-93 da&s grace
period to settle %er o$ligation on or $e#ore Decem$er 21, 1--6 and t%at upon #ailure to do so,
s%e *ill e"ecute a deed o# sale *it% a rig%t to repurc%ase *it%out interest *it%in one &ear in
#avor o# private respondents. =%ere t%e parties to t%e ne* o$ligation e"pressl& recogniHe t%e
continuing e"istence and validit& o# t%e old one, *%ere, in ot%er *ords, t%e parties e"pressl&
negated t%e lapsing o# t%e old o$ligation, t%ere can $e no novation.
Petition is "ENIE". :%e decision o# t%e respondent Court o# ppeals dated 'eptem$er 2., 1---
is %ere$& AFFIRME".
G.R. No. 1'('27
MIC!AEL LAGROSAS, complainant,
vs.
8RISTOL;M<ERS S9UIC, P!ILS., respondent.
FACTS
!ic%ael ,. (agrosas *as emplo&ed $& BristolA!&ers '5ui$$ 1P%il.3, +nc.I!ead ,o%nson P%il. #rom
,anuar& 6, 1--7 until !arc% 28, 2999 as :erritor& !anager in its !edical 'ales >orce Division.
4n >e$ruar& 7, 2999, !a. Dulcinea '. (im, also a :erritor& !anager and (agrosas/ #ormer
girl#riend, attended a district meeting o# territor& managers at !cDonald/s la$ang :o*n
Center. #ter t%e meeting, s%e dined out *it% %er #riends. '%e le#t %er car at !cDonald/s and
rode *it% Cesar R. !en5uito, ,r. =%en t%e& returned to !cDonald/s, (im sa* (agrosas/ car
parCed $eside %er car. (im told !en5uito not to stop %is car $ut (agrosas #ollo*ed t%em and
slammed !en5uito/s car t%rice. !en5uito and (im alig%ted #rom t%e car. (agrosas approac%ed
t%em and %it !en5uito *it% a metal steering *%eel locC. =%en (im tried to intervene, (agrosas
accidentall& %it %er %ead.
2pon learning o# t%e incident, BristolA!&ers re5uired (agrosas to e"plain in *riting *%& %e
s%ould not $e dismissed #or assaulting a coAemplo&ee outside o# $usiness %ours. =%ile t%e
o<ense is not covered $& t%e Code o# Discipline #or :erritor& !anagers, t%e Code states t%at
Bot%er in#ractions not provided #or %erein s%all $e penaliHed in t%e most appropriate manner at
t%e discretion o# management.B +n %is memo, (agrosas admitted t%at %e accidentall& %it (im
*%en s%e tried to intervene. 6e e"plained t%at %e did not intend to %it %er as s%o*n $& t%e #act
t%at %e never le#t t%e %ospital until %e *as assured t%at s%e *as all rig%t. 4n !arc% 28, 2999,
BristolA!&ers dismissed (agrosas e<ective immediatel&. (agrosas t%en 0led a complaint #or
illegal dismissal, etc.
:%e (a$or r$iter Renaldo 4. 6ernandeH rendered a Decision declaring t%e dismissal illegal. 6e
noted t%at *%ile (agrosas committed misconduct, it *as not connected *it% %is *orC. :%e
incident occurred outside o# compan& premises and o?ce %ours. 6e also o$served t%at t%e
misconduct *as not directed against a coAemplo&ee *%o @ust %appened to $e accidentall& %it in
t%e process. ;evert%eless, (a$or r$iter 6ernandeH imposed a penalt& o# t%ree mont%s
suspension or #or#eiture o# pa& to remind (agrosas not to $e carried a*a& $& t%e mindless
dictates o# %is passion.
4n appeal, t%e ;(RC set aside t%e Decision o# (a$or r$iter 6ernandeH. +t %eld t%at (agrosas
*as validl& dismissed #or serious misconduct in %itting %is coAemplo&ee and anot%er person
*it% a metal steering *%eel locC. 6o*ever, upon (agrosas/ motion #or reconsideration, t%e
;(RC issued a Resolution reversing its earlier ruling. +t ratiocinated t%at t%e incident *as not
*orCArelated since it occurred onl& a#ter t%e district meeting o# territor& managers. +t
emp%asiHed t%at #or a serious misconduct to merit dismissal, it must $e connected *it% t%e
emplo&ee/s *orC.
BristolA!&ers 0led a motion #or reconsideration, *%ic% t%e ;(RC denied. (ater, (a$or r$iter
6ernandeH issued a *rit o# e"ecution. ;otices o# garnis%ment *ere t%en served upon t%e
P%ilippine Britis% ssurance Co., +nc. #or t%e supersedeas $ond posted $& BristolA!&ers and t%e
BanC o# t%e P%ilippine +slands #or t%e $alance o# t%e @udgment a*ard.
BristolA!&ers moved to 5uas% t%e *rit o# e"ecution contending t%at it timel& 0led a petition #or
certiorari *it% t%e Court o# ppeals. :%e appellate court gave due course to BristolA!&ers/
Rem2 Case Digests || Rule 57 to 61: Provisional Remedies || Castro | Boco
petition and issued a temporar& restraining order 1:R43 en@oining t%e en#orcement o# t%e *rit
o# e"ecution and notices o# garnis%ment. 2pon t%e e"piration o# t%e :R4, t%e appellate court
issued a *rit o# preliminar& in@unction dated 'eptem$er 17, 2997.
4n ,anuar& 2., 2995, t%e appellate court considered t%e misconduct as %aving $een committed
in connection *it% (agrosas/ dut& as :erritor& !anager since it occurred immediatel& a#ter t%e
district meeting o# territor& managers. +t also %eld t%at t%e gravit& and seriousness o# t%e
misconduct cannot $e denied. (agrosas emplo&ed suc% a degree o# violence t%at caused
damage not onl& to !en5uito/s car $ut also p%&sical in@uries to (im and !en5uito.
(agrosas 0led a motion #or reconsideration *%ic% t%e appellate court denied.
+n t%e meantime, BristolA!&ers moved to release t%e :R4 cas% $ond and in@unction cas% $ond
in vie* o# t%e Decision dated ,anuar& 2., 2995. 4n ugust 12, 2995, t%e appellate court denied
t%e motion as premature since t%e decision is not &et 0nal and e"ecutor& due to (agrosas/
appeal to t%is Court.
BristolA!&ers 0led a motion #or reconsideration. 4n 4cto$er 2., 2995, t%e appellate court
partiall& granted t%e petition and allo*ed t%e disc%arge and release o# t%e cas% $ond #or t%e
e"pired :R4 $ut disallo*ed t%e release o# t%e inunction cas% $ond since t%e *rit o# preliminar&
in@unction *as issued pendente lite $ecause t%ere is a pending appeal *it% t%e 'upreme Court,
t%e Decision dated ,anuar& 2., 2995 is not &et 0nal and e"ecutor&.
6ence, t%e instant petitions.
ISSUES
13 =as t%e dismissal o# (agrosas validP
23 =as t%e C correct in disallo*ing t%e disc%arge and release o# t%e in@unction cas% $ond.
!EL"
,he dismissal 'as invalid.
'erious misconduct as a valid cause #or t%e dismissal o# an emplo&ee is de0ned simpl& as
improper or *rong conduct. +t is a transgression o# some esta$lis%ed and de0nite rule o# action,
a #or$idden act, a dereliction o# dut&, *ill#ul in c%aracter, and implies *rong#ul intent and not
mere error o# @udgment. :o $e serious *it%in t%e meaning and intendment o# t%e la*, t%e
misconduct must $e o# suc% grave and aggravated c%aracter and not merel& trivial or
unimportant. 6o*ever serious suc% misconduct, it must, nevert%eless, $e in connection *it%
t%e emplo&ee/s *orC to constitute @ust cause #or %is separation. :%e act complained o# must $e
related to t%e per#ormance o# t%e emplo&ee/s duties suc% as *ould s%o* %im to $e un0t to
continue *orCing #or t%e emplo&er.
+t is clear t%at (agrosas *as not guilt& o# serious misconduct. +t ma& $e t%at t%e in@ur&
sustained $& (im *as serious since it rendered %er unconscious and caused %er to su<er
cere$ral contusion t%at necessitated %ospitaliHation #or several da&s. But *e #ail to see %o*
suc% misconduct could $e c%aracteriHed as *orCArelated and reQective o# (agrosas/ un0tness to
continue *orCing #or BristolA!&ers.
,he in-unction cash bond posted by Bristol./yers should be dischared and released
+t is settled t%at t%e purpose o# a preliminar& in@unction is to prevent t%reatened or continuous
irremedia$le in@ur& to some o# t%e parties $e#ore t%eir claims can $e t%oroug%l& studied and
ad@udicated. +ts sole aim is to preserve t%e status 5uo until t%e merits o# t%e case can $e %eard
#ull&.
preliminar& in@unction ma& $e granted onl& *%en, among ot%er t%ings, t%e applicant, not
e"plicitl& e"empted, 0les *it% t%e court *%ere t%e action or proceeding is pending, a $ond
e"ecuted to t%e part& or person en@oined, in an amount to $e 0"ed $& t%e court, to t%e e<ect
t%at t%e applicant *ill pa& suc% part& or person all damages *%ic% %e ma& sustain $& reason o#
t%e in@unction or temporar& restraining order i# t%e court s%ould 0nall& decide t%at t%e
applicant *as not entitled t%ereto. 2pon approval o# t%e re5uisite $ond, a *rit o# preliminar&
in@unction s%all $e issued.
:%e in@unction $ond is intended as a securit& #or damages in case it is 0nall& decided t%at t%e
in@unction oug%t not to %ave $een granted. +ts principal purpose is to protect t%e en@oined part&
against loss or damage $& reason o# t%e in@unction, and t%e $ond is usuall& conditioned
accordingl&.
+n t%is case, t%e Court o# ppeals issued t%e *rit o# preliminar& in@unction to en@oin t%e
implementation o# t%e *rit o# e"ecution and notices o# garnis%ment Bpending 0nal resolution o#
t%is case or unless t%e K*Lrit is sooner li#ted $& t%e Court.B
B& its Decision dated ,anuar& 2., 2995, t%e appellate court disposed o# t%e case $& granting
BristolA!&ers/ petition and reinstating t%e Decision dated 'eptem$er 27, 2992 o# t%e ;(RC
*%ic% dismissed t%e complaint #or dismissal. +t also ordered t%e disc%arge o# t%e :R4 cas%
$ond and in@unction cas% $ond. :%us, $ot% conditions o# t%e *rit o# preliminar& in@unction *ere
satis0ed.
;ota$l&, t%e appellate court ruled t%at (agrosas %ad no rig%t to t%e monetar& a*ards granted
$& t%e la$or ar$iter and t%e ;(RC, and t%at t%e implementation o# t%e *rit o# e"ecution and
notices o# garnis%ment *as properl& en@oined. :%is in e<ect amounted to a 0nding t%at
(agrosas did not sustain an& damage $& reason o# t%e in@unction. :o reiterate, t%e in@unction
$ond is intended to protect (agrosas against loss or damage $& reason o# t%e in@unction onl&.
Contrar& to (agrosas/ claim, it is not a securit& #or t%e @udgment a*ard $& t%e la$or ar$iter.
Considering t%e #oregoing, *e %old t%at t%e appellate court erred in disallo*ing t%e disc%arge
and release o# t%e in@unction cas% $ond.
Rem2 Case Digests || Rule 57 to 61: Provisional Remedies || Castro | Boco
G.R. No. 157/11 S$6t$,0$& 1/, 200'
SPOUSES MANUEL A. AGUILAR and <OLAN"A C. AGUILAR, petitioners,
vs.
T!E MANILA 8AN1ING CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS
'ometime in 1-7-, petitioners o$tained a P699,999.99 loan #rom t%e !anila BanCing
Corporation 1respondent3, secured $& a real estate mortgage over t%eir 71-As5uare meter
propert& located at ;o. . PiNa 't., Ralle Rerde, Pasig Cit&, covered $& :rans#er Certi0cate o# :itle
1:C:3 ;o. 119.2. =%en petitioners #ailed to pa& t%eir o$ligation, t%e mortgaged propert& *as
e"traA@udiciall& #oreclosed. Respondent *as t%e *inning $idder at pu$lic auction sale on !a&
29, 1-.2. Conse5uentl&, a Certi0cate o# 'ale *as issued in its #avor on ,une 28, 1-.2.
'u$se5uentl&, on !a& 89, 1-.8, instead o# redeeming t%e propert&, petitioners 0led a
complaint #or annulment o# t%e #oreclosure sale o# t%e propert& $e#ore t%e Pasig R:C. =%ile t%e
case *as pending, t%e parties entered into a compromise agreement.
Petitioners, %o*ever, #ailed to up%old t%eir agreement and still #ailed to pa& t%e $alance
o# P2,77.,999.99 *it%in t%e eig%teenAinstallment period #rom >e$ruar& 28, 1-.7 to ,ul& 27,
1-... &ear and t%ree mont%s later, or on 4cto$er 29, 1-.-, respondent 0led a !otion #or
+ssuance o# =rit o# M"ecution to en#orce t%e Decision dated )anua&3 20, 1/(7, *%erein t%e
R:C adopted t%e compromise agreement.
4n ;ovem$er 2., 1-.-, R:C Branc% 165 issued an 4rder granting t%e motion and issuing a *rit
o# e"ecution. 6o*ever, on ,anuar& 22, 1--9, petitioners 0led a !ani#estation pra&ing #or
de#erment o# t%e en#orcement o# t%e *rit o# e"ecution until ,ul& 81, 1--9 $ecause petitioners
%ave a pending proposal #or t%e settlement o# t%eir @udgment de$t. :%e mani#estation *as *it%
t%e con#ormit& o# respondents. 4n ,anuar& 27, 1--9, R:C issued an 4rder granting t%e motion
and %olding in a$e&ance t%e en#orcement o# t%e *rit o# e"ecution until ,ul& 81, 1--9. 6o*ever,
no settlement *as reac%ed $& t%e parties during t%e period.
&ear later, petitioners still #ailed to settle t%eir @udgment de$t. Conse5uentl&, respondent 0led
on a !ani#estation reiterating its motion #or t%e issuance o# a *rit o# e"ecution. 4n Decem$er
5, 1--1, R:C Branc% 165 issued an 4rder granting t%e mani#estation and directing t%e issuance
o# a *rit o# e"ecution to en#orce t%e Decision dated ,anuar& 89, 1-.7.
:o evade t%e implementation o# t%e *rit, petitioners 0led an 0x.Parte !otion to Recall t%e
CourtOs 4rder dated Decem$er 5, 1--1 claiming t%at t%eir o$ligation *as novated $& t%e (etter
dated ,une 7, 1--1 #rom respondentOs Statuto&3 R$7$5%$&. +n said letter, respondentOs
'tatutor& Receiver approved t%e purc%ase o# t%e propert& on installment $asis over a t%reeA
&ear period at an interest rate o# t*elve per cent 112S3 *it%P7.1,265.99 due on 'eptem$er 89,
1--1, P7.1,265.99 due on 'eptem$er 89, 1--2, and P727,967.7- due on 'eptem$er 89, 1--8.
4n Decem$er 2, 1--2, respondent 0led a !ani#estation and !otion #or +ssuance o# lias =rit o#
M"ecution mani#esting t%at t%e (etter dated ,une 7, 1--1 did not novate t%e Decision dated
,anuar& 89, 1-.7 $ut *as a mere accommodation o# t%e petitionersO re5uest #or a li$eral mode
o# pa&ment o# t%eir account and petitioners still #ailed to compl& *it% suc% approved mode o#
pa&ment.
4n Decem$er 17, 1--2, petitioners 0led t%eir Comment and !ani#estation pra&ing #or a
%umanitarian and li$eral @udicial dispensation since t%at t%e& %ave $een pa&ing t%eir
o$ligations to respondent despite dela& due to B0nancial restraints #or #amil& su$sistence and
t%eir c%ildrenOs educational e"pensesB.
4n >e$ruar& 1, 2999, respondent 0led an 2rgent 0x.Parte !ani#estation pra&ing #or resolution
o# t%e pending incidents. 4n !arc% 8, 2999, petitioners 0led t%eir 4pposition claiming t%at
'ection 6, Rule 8- o# t%e Rules o# Court $ars e"ecution, $& mere motions, o# @udgment *%ic% is
more t%an 0ve &ears old. 4n !arc% 17, 2999, respondent 0led its Repl& stating t%at t%e
peculiar circumstances o# t%e case *arrant its e"clusion #rom t%e scope o# said Rule.
4n !arc% 29, 2999, R:C Branc% 165 issued its 4rder *%ic% resolved t%e pending motions *it%
t%e Court. =it% respect to petitionerOs ex.parte motion to recall, t%e Court treated petitionerOs
motion as a mere scrap o# paper. s to respondentOs motion #or issuance o# a *rit o# e"ecution,
it granted t%e same, %olding t%at 'ection 6, Rule 8- o# t%e Rules o# Court does not appl& since
t%e dela& in t%e e"ecution o# t%e @udgment *as due to petitioners *%o continued to 0le dilator&
motions and pleadings. #ter several motions and appeal, t%e case reac%ed t%e 'upreme Court.
+n a Resolution dated 4cto$er 11, 2999, t%e >irst Division o# t%e Court denied t%e petition #or
violation o# t%e rule on %ierarc%& o# courts and #ailure to s%o* special and important reasons or
e"ceptional and compelling circumstances t%at @usti#& a disregard o# t%e rule. 'ince t%e
Resolution $ecame 0nal and e"ecutor& on ,anuar& 16, 2991, R:C Branc% 165 issued a *rit o#
e"ecution on >e$ruar& 1-, 2991 to en#orce t%e Decision dated ,anuar& 89, 1-.7. 4n >e$ruar&
28, 2991, t%e '%eri< issued a ;otice #or Compliance o# t%e said *rit.
2ndaunted $& t%eir previous set$acCs, petitioners 0led on !arc% 6, 2991 in R:C Branc% 165 an
4mni$us !otion to 5uas% t%e =rit o# M"ecution insisting ane* on t%eir novation and
prescription t%eories. :%e& also moved #or consignation o# t%e amount o# t%eir o$ligation under
t%e (etter dated ,une 7, 1--1 o# respondentOs 'tatutor& Receiver.
#ter several motions continuousl& 0led $& t%e petitioners, including motions #or in%i$itions, t%e
case *as reAraTed t*ice and eventuall& landed on R:C Branc% 167.
4n !a& 27, 2992, R:C Branc% 167 rendered its 4mni$us 4rder den&ing t%e 4mni$us !otion to
5uas% t%e *rit o# e"ecution and #or consignation, as *ell as t%e motion to cite petitioners in
contempt and t%e ex parte motion #or an order to divest petitionersO title to respondent. +t %eld
t%at t%ere *as no novation $ecause t%ere *as no incompati$ilit& $et*een t%e (etter dated ,une
7, 1--1 and t%e Decision dated ,anuar& 89, 1-.7 *it% t%e #ormer onl& providing #or a more
li$eral sc%eme o# pa&ment and grant o# reduced interestE t%at petitionersO claim t%at
respondentOs receivers%ip and t%e (etter dated ,une 7, 1--1 are supervening events *%ic%
rendered t%e e"ecution un@ust and impossi$le is unavailing since t%ere is not%ing on record to
indicate t%at suc% circumstances resulted in un#airness and in@ustice to petitioners i# e"ecution
o# @udgment is carried outE t%at petitionerOs claim t%at t%e @udgment could no longer $e
e"ecuted $& mere motion a#ter t%e 0veA&ear period %ad elapsed #rom its 0nalit& is specious
since an& interruption or dela& occasioned $& petitioners *ill e"tend t%e time *it%in *%ic% t%e
@udgment ma& $e e"ecuted $& motion.
:%e C up%eld t%e R:C decision. 6ence, t%is petition.
ISSUE
=%et%er t%e (etter dated ,une 7, 1--1 o# respondentOs 'tatutor& Receiver novated t%e Decision
dated ,anuar& 89, 1-.7 considering t%e su$stantial di<erences in t%eir principal terms and
conditions
!EL"
;o.
PetitionersO arguments on t%e ine5uit& o# t%e acceleration clause o# t%e Compromise
greement, respondentOs receivers%ip as a supervening event, and novation o# t%e
Compromise greement $& t%e (etter dated ,une 7, 1--1, t%e Court %olds t%at t%ese *ere
raised as mere a#tert%oug%t. +# petitioners sincerel& $elieved in t%e merits o# t%eir arguments,
t%e& s%ould %ave raised t%em at t%e earliest opportunit& and pursued t%eir ultimate resolution.
6o*ever, petitioners did not.
Petitioners are $arred #rom raising arguments concerning t%e ine5uit& o# t%e acceleration
clause o# t%e Compromise greement since t%e& onl& raised it #or t%e 0rst time $e#ore t%e C
in t%eir Petition #or Certiorari *it% t%e C. :o consider t%e argument raised $elatedl& in a
pleading 0led in t%e appellate court, especiall& in t%e e"ecutor& stage o# t%e proceedings,
*ould amount to trampling on t%e $asic principles o# #air pla&, @ustice and due process.
+n addition, a#ter adopting and agreeing to t%e terms and conditions o# t%e Compromise
greement, petitioners cannot $e permitted to su$se5uentl& maCe a complete volte #ace and
attacC t%e validit& o# t%e said agreement *%en t%e& misera$l& #ailed to compl& *it% its
provisions. 4ur la* and polic& do not sanction suc% a somersault. =%atOs more, petitioners also
#ailed to compl& *it% t%e reduced purc%ase amount and interest rate granted in t%e (etter
dated ,une 7, 1--1. :%e& can %ardl& evoCe @udicial compassion.
4n t%e arguments relating to t%e e<ect o# respondentOs receivers%ip, petitioners $roug%t t%is
matter #or t%e 0rst time in R:C Branc% 165 in t%eir 4mni$us !otion dated !arc% 5, 2991,
Rem2 Case Digests || Rule 57 to 61: Provisional Remedies || Castro | Boco
#ourteen &ears a#ter respondent *as placed under receivers%ip and *as ordered to close
operation in 1-.7. :%e $elated invocation o# suc% circumstance speaCs strongl& o# t%e
staleness o# t%eir claim.
Besides, it *ould $e a$surd to adopt petitionersO position t%at t%e& are not o$liged to pa&
interest on t%eir o$ligation *%en respondent *as placed under receivers%ip. =%en a $anC is
placed under receivers%ip, it *ould onl& not $e a$le to do ne* $usiness" t%at is, to grant ne*
loans or to accept ne* deposits. 6o*ever, t%e receiver o# t%e $anC is in #act o$liged to collect
de$ts o*ing to t%e $anC, *%ic% de$ts #orm part o# t%e assets o# t%e $anC. :%us, petitionersO
o$ligation to pa& interest su$sists even *%en respondent *as placed under receivers%ip. :%e
respondentOs receivers%ip is an e"traneous circumstance and %as no e<ect on petitionersO
o$ligation.
4n t%e claim o# novation, petitioners raised it #or t%e 0rst time $e#ore R:C Branc% 165 in
t%eir 0x.Parte !otion to Recall t%e CourtOs 4rder dated Decem$er 5, 1--1 $ut t%e& did not
pursue t%e matter a#ter t%eir ex.parte motion *as denied. :%e& did not raise said issue in t%eir
motion #or reconsideration or in t%eir 0rst petition #or revie* on certiorari *it% t%is Court in ).R.
;o. 17771-. :%us, t%e& are deemed to %ave a$andoned t%eir claim o# novation. :%e& cannot $e
allo*ed to revive t%e issue as it is o<ensive to $asic rules o# #air pla&, @ustice and due process.
!oreover, t%e Court cannot see %o* novation can taCe place considering t%at t%e surrounding
circumstances negate t%e same. :%e esta$lis%ed rule is t%at novation is never presumedE it
must $e clearl& and une5uivocall& s%o*n. ;ovation *ill not $e allo*ed unless it is clearl&
s%o*n $& e"press agreement, or $& acts o# e5ual import. :%us, to e<ect an o$@ective novation
it is imperative t%at t%e ne* o$ligation e"pressl& declares t%at t%e old o$ligation is t%ere$&
e"tinguis%ed or t%at t%e ne* o$ligation $e on ever& point incompati$le *it% t%e ne* one.
+n t%e present case, t%ere is no clear intent o# t%e parties to maCe t%e (etter dated ,une 7, 1--1
completel& supersede and a$olis% t%e Compromise greement adopted and approved $& t%e
R:C in its Decision dated ,anuar& 89, 1-.7. Petitioners *ere merel& granted a more li$eral
sc%eme o# pa&ment and reduced rate o# interest $ut t%e conditions relating to t%e
conse5uences o# de#ault in pa&ment remained, suc% t%at *%en petitionersO #ailed to compl&
*it% t%e approved mode o# pa&ment in t%e (etter dated ,une 7, 1--1, respondents *ere
entitled to call #or en#orcement o# t%e Decision dated ,anuar& 89, 1-.7 and e@ect petitioners
#rom t%e propert&. :%e *ellAsettled rule is t%at, *it% respect to o$ligations to pa& a sum o#
mone&, t%e o$ligation is not novated $& an instrument t%at e"pressl& recogniHes t%e old,
c%anges onl& t%e terms o# pa&ment, adds ot%er o$ligations not incompati$le *it% t%e old ones,
or t%e ne* contract merel& supplements t%e old one. 6ence, t%ere is no merit to petitionersO
claim o# novation.
=it%out a dou$t, t%e present case is an instance *%ere t%e due process routine vigorousl&
pursued $& petitioners is $ut a clearAcut devise meant to perpetuall& #orestall e"ecution o# an
ot%er*ise 0nal and e"ecutor& decision. side #rom clogging court docCets, t%e strateg& is
deplora$l& a common course resorted to $& losing litigants in t%e %ope o# evading mani#est
o$ligations. :%e Court condemns t%is outrageous a$use o# t%e @udicial process $& t%e
petitioners and t%eir counsels.
+t is an important #undamental principle in t%e @udicial s&stem t%at ever& litigation must come
to an end. ccess to t%e courts is guaranteed. But t%ere must $e a limit t%ereto. 4nce a
litigantOs rig%ts %ave $een ad@udicated in a valid and 0nal @udgment o# a competent court, %e
s%ould not $e granted an un$ridled license to come $acC #or anot%er tr&. :%e prevailing part&
s%ould not $e %arassed $& su$se5uent suits. >or, i# endless litigations *ere to $e encouraged,
t%en unscrupulous litigants *ill multipl& to t%e detriment o# t%e administration o# @ustice.
:%e present petition is "ENIE".