View full case

DAVAO LIGHT v. CA

FACTS:

Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. filed a complaint against Queensland Hotel, Inc. and Teodorico Adarna. Along with the complaint, Davao Light filed an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment. The trial court granted the application and issued the writ. Defendants later filed a motion to discharge the attachment, arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue it. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals annulled the order and declared the attachment null and void. The issue is whether a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued ex parte before the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

In this case, the Supreme Court discussed various acts that may be done by the plaintiff or the court before the service of summons on the defendant. The court clarified that a preliminary attachment is a statutory remedy that allows the property of the adverse party to be taken into the custody of the court as security. The court emphasized that no principle prohibits the issuance of preliminary attachment before the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. Rule 57 of the Rules of Court allows the grant of preliminary attachment "at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter." The court stated that it has been the practice for the plaintiff to incorporate the application for attachment in the complaint, and for the court to issue the writ ex parte if it finds the application sufficient in form and substance.

The court cited previous cases which affirmed that a hearing on a motion for preliminary attachment is not generally necessary and that notice and hearing are not indispensable requirements for the issuance of a writ of attachment. The court reiterated that the only prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of attachment is that the court be satisfied, upon consideration of the affidavit of the applicant or another person who knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of action exists and other requirements prescribed by the law are met.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a hearing is required on an application for a preliminary attachment.

  2. What are the modes of recourse against a preliminary attachment?

  3. Whether or not the failure to comply with the requirement of service of summons and other documents upon the defendant renders the writ of attachment invalid.

  4. Whether or not the defendant can file a motion to dissolve the attachment based on the irregular or improper issuance of the attachment writ.

  5. Whether or not the failure to serve the summons and other documents on the defendant before or at the time of the levy of attachment renders the attachment invalid.

RULING:

  1. No, a hearing is not required on an application for a preliminary attachment. The court emphasized that conducting a hearing would defeat the objective of the remedy because it would give the defendant time to abscond or dispose of their property before a writ of attachment is issued. The court noted that ample modes of recourse against a preliminary attachment are available to the defendant.

  2. The two ways of discharging an attachment are by posting a counterbond or by showing its improper or irregular issuance. A counterbond can be posted to lift an attachment already enforced against property or to prevent its enforcement. The defendant can seek the discharge of the attachment by a counterbond even before actual seizure of the property. Additionally, a preliminary attachment may be lifted or discharged if it has been irregularly or improperly issued.

  3. Yes, the failure to comply with the requirement of service of summons and other documents upon the defendant renders the writ of attachment invalid. It is essential to serve the defendant with copies of the applicant's affidavit and attachment bond, the order of attachment, the summons, the copy of the complaint, and the order for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, if any. Failure to serve these documents deprives the court of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and violates the defendant's right to due process.

  4. No, the defendant cannot file a motion to dissolve the attachment based on the irregular or improper issuance of the attachment writ. If the preliminary attachment is issued upon a ground which is also the applicant's cause of action, the defendant is not allowed to file a motion to dissolve the attachment by showing the falsity of the factual averments in the applicant's application and affidavits. Instead, the defendant may only dissolve the attachment by posting a counterbond.

  5. The Court ruled that the failure to serve the summons and other documents on the defendant before or at the time of the levy of attachment renders the attachment invalid. The Court reiterated that writs of attachment may be issued ex parte as long as the necessary requisites have been fulfilled by the applicant. However, the levy on property pursuant to the issued writ of attachment cannot be validly effected unless it is preceded or contemporaneously accompanied by the service of summons, a copy of the complaint, the order of attachment, and the plaintiff's attachment bond to the defendant.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notice and hearing are not indispensable and mandatory requisites for the issuance of a writ of attachment. The court only needs to be satisfied that a sufficient cause of action exists, the case falls under the grounds stated in the Rules of Court, there is no other sufficient security, and the amount due is as much as the sum for which the attachment is granted.

  • The purpose of not requiring a hearing on an application for preliminary attachment is to prevent absconding debtors-defendants from hiding their assets and to ensure that the creditor-plaintiff does not lose any security for a favorable judgment.

  • Recourse against preliminary attachments can be made by posting a counterbond or by showing that the attachment was improperly or irregularly issued.

  • Failure to comply with the requirement of service of summons and other documents upon the defendant renders the writ of attachment invalid and violates the defendant's right to due process.

  • The defendant cannot file a motion to dissolve the attachment based on the irregular or improper issuance of the attachment writ if the attachment is issued upon a ground which is also the applicant's cause of action. The defendant may only dissolve the attachment by posting a counterbond.

  • Writs of attachment may be issued ex parte if the court is satisfied that the requisites have been fulfilled by the applicant.

  • The levy on property pursuant to the issued writ of attachment must be accompanied by the service of summons, a copy of the complaint, the order of attachment, and the plaintiff's attachment bond to the defendant.