PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. JOSEPH ANT M. ALEJANDRO

FACTS:

The first case involves the petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) filing a complaint against the respondent Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro for a sum of money. PCIB sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, alleging that Alejandro fraudulently withdrew his unassigned deposits and claiming that he is not a resident of the Philippines. The trial court granted the application and issued the writ ex parte. However, the trial court later quashed the writ, stating that Alejandro's withdrawal of deposits was not intended to defraud PCIB and that PCIB had personal and official knowledge of Alejandro's residence and office addresses. PCIB's appeal to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court were dismissed. Meanwhile, Alejandro filed a claim for damages on the attachment bond and was awarded P25 million in damages.

In the second case, Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. issued a bond in favor of John Gokongwei, Jr. Gokongwei claimed that Prudential Bank, which was allegedly solidarily liable with the plaintiff bank, misrepresented his residency status and suppressed the fact that he had a permanent residence in Metro Manila. The trial court ruled in favor of Gokongwei and ordered Prudential Bank to pay the full amount of the bond and additional damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings but reduced the amount of damages awarded to Gokongwei. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, with the Court of Appeals denying Prudential Bank's motion and granting Gokongwei's motion for additional damages. Prudential Bank filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, arguing that it acted in good faith and that attachment was still proper even if Gokongwei is considered a resident of the Philippines.

The third case involves a loan obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff bank, with the defendant assigning his bank account as collateral. The defendant later withdrew money from the assigned bank account, which the plaintiff alleged was done with the intent to defraud. The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking the issuance of a writ of attachment against the defendant's properties. The court initially granted the attachment based on the defendant's residence outside the Philippines, but it was later discovered that the plaintiff already knew that the ground for attachment was deficient. The court concluded that the defendant had proven his grounds and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the attachment, citing the principle of conclusiveness of judgment and cases debunking the claim of good faith by a party seeking the issuance of a writ of attachment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the plaintiff made misrepresentations in seeking the issuance of the attachment.

  2. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the attachment.

  3. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant in an action in personam despite the defendant being a resident temporarily out of the Philippines

  4. Whether the attachment of the defendant's property is necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case

  5. Whether petitioner is entitled to a writ of attachment against respondent.

  6. Whether petitioner is liable for damages for the wrongful issuance of a writ of attachment against respondent.

  7. Whether or not the attachment bond issued by Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Inc. is valid.

  8. Whether or not the amount of moral damages and exemplary damages should be reduced.

RULING:

  1. The plaintiff made misrepresentations in seeking the issuance of the attachment. The court concluded that the plaintiff already knew the deficiency of its second ground for attachment and resorted to misrepresentation that the defendant was residing out of the Philippines. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the attachment.

  2. The plaintiff is not entitled to the attachment. The court found that the plaintiff's claim of good faith in procuring the writ is unfounded based on previous decisions that voided the writ and determined the plaintiff's bad faith. Even if the trial court did not make a categorical pronouncement of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, the omission of highly material and relevant facts and circumstances does not support the plaintiff's claim of good faith.

  3. In an action in personam, the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons. However, in the case of a defendant who is a resident temporarily out of the Philippines, the court may acquire jurisdiction through substituted service of summons. It is not always necessary to attach the defendant's property for the court to acquire jurisdiction.

  4. The attachment of the defendant's property is not necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case, especially when substituted service of summons is sufficient. Attachment must be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy.

  5. No, petitioner is not entitled to a writ of attachment against respondent. The trial court could acquire jurisdiction over the case by substituted service instead of attaching the property of the defendant.

  6. Yes, petitioner is liable for damages for the wrongful issuance of a writ of attachment against respondent. The Court of Appeals properly sustained the finding of the trial court.

  7. The Supreme Court did not provide any ruling on the validity of the attachment bond issued by Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Inc. The case may have been dismissed or resolved based on other grounds.

  8. Justice Austria-Martinez concurred with the ruling but suggested the reduction of the amount of moral damages to P200,000.00 and exemplary damages to P100,000.00.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Misrepresentations made in seeking the issuance of an attachment may result in the denial of the attachment.

  • The principle of conclusiveness of judgment bars a party from invoking good faith in a subsequent application for the issuance of a writ of attachment if the party has been previously determined to have acted in bad faith in procuring the writ.

  • The circumstances under which a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued are enumerated in Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.

  • In an action in personam, the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons.

  • In actions in personam against residents temporarily out of the Philippines, the court may acquire jurisdiction through substituted service of summons.

  • Attachment of the defendant's property is not always necessary to acquire jurisdiction, especially when substituted service of summons is sufficient.

  • the application of a writ of attachment must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant, as it is an extraordinary and summary remedy.

  • A writ of attachment should be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy.

  • A party who has been injured by a wrongful attachment can recover damages for the actual loss resulting therefrom, which must be duly established by competent proofs.

  • Nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right.

  • The award of nominal damages is subject to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded if a party is compelled to incur expenses to lift a wrongfully issued writ of attachment.

  • The basis of the award for attorney's fees is the amount of money garnished, the length of time respondents have been deprived of the use of their money, and other factors such as the amount and character of services rendered and the skill and experience of the attorney.

  • Moral damages are to be fixed upon the discretion of the court taking into consideration the educational, social, and financial standing of the parties.

  • Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion, or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone.

  • Moral damages must be commensurate with the loss or injury suffered.

  • Exemplary damages may be awarded by way of example or correction for public good if the attachment was established to be maliciously sued out.

  • The liability on the attachment bond is limited to actual, temperate, or nominal damages, but exemplary damages may be recovered when the attachment was maliciously sued out.

  • The claim for damages arising from a wrongful attachment may arise and be decided separately from the merits of the main action.

No legal principles or doctrines are mentioned in the given text.