View full case

UEM MARA PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. ALEJANDRO NG WEE

FACTS:

This case involves a dispute over the garnishment of income in relation to a tollway project. The respondent, Union (U)/Leighton (L) Joint Venture (ULJV), entered into an agreement with the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) for the construction of a tollway. Ng Wee Corporation (Ng Wee) was a subconcessionaire of ULJV and was entitled to a portion of the revenue generated from the tollway project.

Ng Wee alleged that the petitioner, Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), owed them a certain amount as their share in the tollway project's income. As a result, Ng Wee filed a collection case against PRA. The trial court issued a notice of garnishment to PRA, ordering the latter to withhold and remit any amount due to Ng Wee from the tollway project's income.

PRA filed an opposition to the notice of garnishment, arguing that only the net revenue share of ULJV as of November 7, 2000, should be garnished and that the notice did not cover the period from November 13, 2000, to July 2010. PRA also claimed that the garnishment should be limited to the income allotted by PRA as of the said date.

Ng Wee, on the other hand, argued that the garnishment should not be limited to the net revenue share of ULJV as of November 7, 2000, but should also cover the period from November 14, 2000, to the present, as it was the proportionate share of ULJV in the project income that was being collected by PRA.

The trial court issued an order modifying the amount of the counter-bond required by PRA. However, the full details of this order are not provided in the available text.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in lifting the preliminary attachment as against UEM MARA without conducting a hearing to determine the veracity of the PRA's claim.

  2. Whether the CA erred in granting certiorari over an error of judgment.

  3. Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment issued against UEM MARA is still valid and enforceable.

  4. Whether or not the withdrawal of the complaint in the main case renders the attachment writ null and void.

  5. Whether UEM-MARA can be held solidarity liable for the defrauded investments of Alejandro Ng Wee under the Power Merge account.

  6. Whether UEM-MARA has a cause of action against it in relation to Ng Wee's investments in Wincorp.

RULING:

  1. Yes. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in lifting the preliminary attachment as against UEM MARA without conducting a hearing to determine the veracity of the PRA's claim. The CA held that the trial court erred in giving full credence to the PRA's claim that UEM MARA has yet to earn any income from the tollway project because the same has not yet been allocated by the project's management committee. The CA ruled that the trial court should have at least conducted a hearing to determine the veracity of the PRA's claim as against the financial statements submitted by Ng Wee. The preliminary attachment over UEM MARA's proportionate share in the project income was restored.

  2. No ruling was made on this issue in the text provided.

  3. The Supreme Court held that the writ of preliminary attachment issued against UEM MARA has ceased to exist and is rendered null and void. The withdrawal of the complaint in the main case, coupled with the finality of the judgment, has rendered the attachment writ legally non-existent. An attachment is an ancillary remedy and is dependent on a principal proceeding. Once the main case is terminated or cannot be maintained, the attachment ceases to have any effect.

  4. UEM-MARA cannot be held solidarity liable for the defrauded investments of Alejandro Ng Wee under the Power Merge account. UEM-MARA is a separate entity and there is no evidence that it was involved in perpetrating fraud against the investors.

  5. UEM-MARA does not have a cause of action against it in relation to Ng Wee's investments in Wincorp. Ng Wee failed to show any specific wrong committed by UEM-MARA against him in relation to his investments.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court to levy upon the property of the defendant as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be secured by the plaintiff. It is governed by Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court. (Lorenzo Shipping v. Villarin)

  • The function of an attachment or garnishment is two-fold: (a) to seize property of an alleged debtor in advance of final judgment to prevent loss or dissipation of the property; and (b) to subject the property to payment of a creditor's claim in cases where personal service cannot be obtained upon the debtor.

  • A writ of preliminary attachment is an ancillary remedy and is not sought for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon the relief sought in the main action.

  • An attachment or garnishment is generally ancillary to, and dependent on, a principal proceeding, either at law or in equity, which aims to determine the justice of a creditor's demand.

  • An attachment is an incident to a suit and, therefore, ceases to have any effect once the suit can no longer be maintained.

  • A writ of preliminary attachment operates as an attachment and fastens upon the property a lien, subjecting the property to the jurisdiction of the court that issued the writ. During the life of the attachment, the attached property remains in the custody of the law, with the attaching officer having possession and liability for its safekeeping.

  • A cause of action requires a right in favor of the plaintiff, an obligation on the part of the defendant, and an act or omission violating the plaintiff's right or constituting a breach of the defendant's obligation.

  • A separate and distinct entity cannot be held liable for the acts or omissions of another entity, unless there is evidence of its direct involvement or participation in the wrongdoing.