View full case

EMMANUEL C. OÑATE v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

FACTS:

Petitioners filed motions seeking reconsideration of the Second Division's decision. The Second Division held that the attachment of petitioners' properties, made before the trial court acquired jurisdiction over them, was cured by the subsequent service of summons on them. The motions were referred to the Court en banc. Petitioners argued that the attachment was void and that the examination of their bank accounts was not justified. Private respondent argued that the subsequent acquisition of jurisdiction cured the invalidity of the attachment. The Court found the attachment of petitioners' properties to be void because the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction at that time. The records showed that the attachment was made before the service of summons on petitioners. Private respondent invoked a ruling in a previous case to support its contention, but the Court clarified that while the writ of attachment may be issued before the defendant is summoned, the writ cannot be implemented until jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the attachment of petitioners' properties before the service of summons on them was valid.

  2. Whether the sheriff's failure to serve the summons before implementing the writ of attachment is excusable.

  3. Whether the money paid to Brunner was the consideration for the sale of treasury bills or money intended for placement.

  4. Whether the examination of bank books and records can be justified under Rule 57, § 10.

RULING:

  1. The attachment of petitioners' properties before the service of summons on them was invalid. The court held that the writ of attachment must be served simultaneously with the service of summons before it may be enforced. The properties of the petitioners were attached by the sheriff before he had served the summons on them, thus the levies made must be considered void. Even though the court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant later on, the attachment made before the service of summons is still invalid.

  2. The sheriff's failure to serve the summons before implementing the writ of attachment cannot be excused. The court emphasized the need for the jurisdiction of the court issuing the attachment over the person of the defendant, which is the most fundamental requisite. The failure of the sheriff to abide by the law and serve the summons before enforcing the attachment cannot be justified by the fact that jurisdiction over the petitioners was eventually acquired.

  3. The Court held that whether the transaction between petitioner Brunner and Sun Life is considered a sale of treasury bills or money placement does not make the money the "subject matter of litigation" within the meaning of § 2 of Republic Act No. 1405. The disclosure or inquiry into bank deposits is only allowed when the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation. And whether the money was "swindled" is irrelevant.

  4. The examination of bank books and records cannot be justified under Rule 57, § 10. Such examination is only proper when the property of the person examined has been validly attached. In this case, since the attachment of petitioners' properties was invalid, the examination ordered in connection with the attachment is also considered invalid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The attachment of properties before the service of summons on the defendant is invalid, even if the court later acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. The writ of attachment must be served simultaneously with the service of summons before it may be enforced. (Cuartero v. Court of Appeals)

  • The Rules of Court do not require that issuance of the writ be kept a secret until it can be enforced. Thus, service of summons on the defendant may precede the levy on attachment. (Rule 57, § 13)

  • The lifting of an attachment may be resorted to even before any property has been levied on. (Davao Light and Power)

  • No hearing is required for the issuance of a writ of attachment to avoid delay or the possibility of the defendant disposing of his properties. However, a hearing may be necessary before the writ is issued if the issue of fraudulent disposal of property is raised. (Mindanao Savings and Loans Ass'n v. Court of Appeals)

  • The disclosure or inquiry into bank deposits is only allowed when the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation.

  • The examination of bank books and records is only proper when the property of the person examined has been validly attached.