View full case

NORTHERN ISLANDS v. SPS. DENNIS

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by Northern Islands Co., Inc. against Spouses Dennis and Cherylin Garcia for the unpaid value of appliances delivered by the petitioner to the respondents. The petitioner applied for a writ of preliminary attachment, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The respondents filed various motions, including a motion for extension of time to file a proper pleading and a motion for discovery.

The RTC denied the motion for extension of time and directed the respondents to file their answer. The respondents then filed a motion to discharge excess attachment, claiming that the value of the attached properties exceeded the amount of the attachment bond. The RTC denied the motion to discharge excess attachment but granted the motion for discovery.

The respondents filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC. Subsequently, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the denial of their motion to discharge excess attachment and seeking the appointment of a commissioner to determine the value of the attached properties.

The CA partly granted the petition, ordering the appointment of a commissioner and the subsequent discharge of any excess attachment. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the CA, which was denied. Hence, the present petition before the Supreme Court.

The issues presented are whether the RTC lost jurisdiction over the matter of the preliminary attachment after petitioner appealed the decision in the main case, and whether the CA erred in ordering the appointment of a commissioner and the subsequent discharge of any excess attachment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the RTC had lost jurisdiction over the matter of the preliminary attachment after petitioner appealed the decision in the Main Case.

  2. Whether the CA erred in ordering the appointment of a commissioner and the subsequent discharge of any excess attachment found by said commissioner.

RULING:

  1. The RTC did not lose jurisdiction over the matter of the preliminary attachment after petitioner appealed the decision in the Main Case. Although petitioner's appeal was already pending before the CA, the RTC still had authority to determine the validity of the attachment and to appoint a commissioner to ascertain the value of the attached properties.

  2. The CA did not err in ordering the appointment of a commissioner and the subsequent discharge of any excess attachment found by said commissioner. The CA correctly applied Rule 32 of the Rules of Court, which allows the referral of the factual determination of the total aggregate amount of the attached properties to a commissioner. The appointment of a commissioner is aimed at settling the conflicting valuations made by the parties. If the commissioner finds that the attachment is excessive, it should be discharged.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The RTC retains jurisdiction over the matter of the preliminary attachment even if an appeal has been filed in the main case.

  • Rule 32 of the Rules of Court allows the appointment of a commissioner to determine the value of the attached properties.

  • If the commissioner finds that the attachment is excessive, it should be discharged.