FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Alfredo C. Lim, Jr. (Lim, Jr.) against the Court of Appeals (CA) decision affirming the RTC order lifting the writ of preliminary attachment issued in favor of Lim, Jr. The facts are as follows:

Lim, Jr. filed a complaint for sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against Tito S. Lazaro and Carmen T. Lazaro (Sps. Lazaro). Lim, Jr. sought to recover the amount of P2,160,000.00 from the Sps. Lazaro, which represented the amounts stated in dishonored checks issued by the latter. The RTC granted the writ of preliminary attachment and levied upon three parcels of land registered under Sps. Lazaro's names.

Sps. Lazaro filed an Answer with Counterclaim, claiming that Lim, Jr. had no cause of action against them. They argued that Lim, Jr. was not the payee of the checks and that they did not issue some of the checks. Sps. Lazaro also sought an accounting and reconciliation of records to determine the actual amount due. They opposed the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment.

Later on, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement approved by the RTC. However, Sps. Lazaro filed an Omnibus Motion to lift the writ of preliminary attachment, which the RTC granted. The RTC ruled that since the case had already been closed and terminated based on the compromise agreement, the writ of preliminary attachment should be lifted. Lim, Jr.'s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading him to file a petition for certiorari before the CA.

The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The CA held that the writ of preliminary attachment could not be issued after the principal cause of action had already been declared closed and terminated. Lim, Jr.'s motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Lim, Jr. filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment was improper. The compromise agreement did not fully settle the obligations, and therefore, the attachment of Sps. Lazaro's properties should have continued. The Supreme Court cited previous jurisprudence to support its ruling. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the trial court to restore the attachment lien over Sps. Lazaro's properties in favor of Lim, Jr.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment was properly lifted.

RULING:

1. The Court ruled that the writ of preliminary attachment was improperly lifted.

PRINCIPLES:

• Preliminary attachment is an ancillary remedy applied for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon the relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action. It is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the main action and is available during its pendency to preserve and protect certain rights and interests. [Para. 12]

• A writ of attachment 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. [Para. 18]

• A writ of attachment is not extinguished by the execution of a compromise agreement between the parties. The parties to a 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. [Para. 21]

• The lien or security obtained by an attachment even before judgment is in the nature of a vested interest which affords specific security for the satisfaction of the debt put in suit. [Para. 22]