Cuartero vs. CA. Aug. 5, 1992. Gutierrez, J.
Date
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS:
SUMMARY:Cuartero filed a complaint before the RTC of QC against the spouses Evangelista for
a sum of money plus damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.
RTC ruled in his favor. The CA however cancelled the writ of preliminary attachment previously
issued by the RTC on the ground that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
said spouses. SC reversed the CA decision and reinstated the order and writ of attachment
issued by the RTC. The SC explained that writ of preliminary attachment can be applied for
and granted at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter upon fulfillment
of the pertinent requisites laid down by law ("at the commencement of the action" is
interpreted as referring to the date of the filing of the complaint which is a time before summons
is served on the defendant or even before summons issues).
However, said writ cannot bind and affect the defendant until jurisdiction over his person is
eventually obtained; thus, it is required that when the proper officer commences
implementation of the writ of attachment, service of summons should be simultaneously
made. In the case at bar, when the writ of attachment was served on the spouses Evangelista,
the summons and copy of the complaint were also simultaneously served.
HOW THE CASE REACHED THE SC:
FACTS:
August 20, 1990: Cuartero filed a complaint before the RTC of QC against the spouses
Evangelista for a sum of money (P2,171,794.91) plus damages with a prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.
August 24, 1990: The RTC issued an order granting ex-parte Cuarteros prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.
September 19, 1990: The writ of preliminary attachment was issued pursuant to the trial
courts order dated August 24, 1990. On the same day, the summons for the spouses
Evangelista were likewise prepared.
September 20, 1990: A copy of the writ of preliminary attachment, the order dated August
24, 1990, the summons and the complaint were all simultaneously served upon the spouses
Evangelista at their residence. Immediately thereafter, Deputy Sheriff Sila levied, attached
and pulled out the properties in compliance with the court's directive. Subsequently, the
spouses filed motion to set aside the order dated August 24, 1990 and discharge the writ of
preliminary attachment for having been irregularly and improperly issued.
October 4, 1990: RTC denied the motion for lack of merit. Spouses Evangelista then filed a
special civil action for certiorari with the CA questioning the orders of the lower court dated
August 24, 1990 and October 4, 1990 with a prayer for a restraining order or writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the judge from taking further proceedings below.
June 27, 1991: CA granted the petition for certiorari. It nullified the orders of the RTC dated
August 24, 1990 and October 4, 1990 and cancelled the writ of preliminary attachment
issued on September 19, 1990.
SOLIS,
RAFAEL
ALEJANDRO
L.
CA grounded its decision on its finding that the RTC did not acquire any jurisdiction over the
person of the private respondents: It is not disputed that neither service of summons with a
copy of the complaint nor voluntary appearance of petitioners was had in this case before
the trial court issued the assailed order dated August 24, 1990, as well as the writ of
preliminary attachment dated September 19, 1990.
October 22, 1991: MR filed by Cuartero was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition for
review on certiorari seeking to annul the decision of the CA promulgated on June 27, 1991
and October 22, 1991.
PETITIONERS ARGUMENT:
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT:
ISSUES:
1.
WON issuance of writ of preliminary attachment is valid. YES
2.
W/N lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. YES.
HELD:
1.
A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a provisional remedy issued upon order of
the court where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the
defendant therein, the same to be held thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of
whatever judgment might be secured in said action by the attaching creditor against the
defendant.
2.
Under section 3, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, the only requisites for the issuance of the
writ are the affidavit and bond of the applicant.
3.
As has been expressly ruled in BF Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, citing Mindanao
Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, no notice to the adverse party or
hearing of the application is required inasmuch as the time which the hearing will take could be
enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property before a writ of
attachment issues.
4.
The writ of preliminary attachment can be applied for and granted at the commencement
of the action or at any time thereafter (Section 1, Rule 57, Rules of Court). "At the
commencement of the action" is interpreted as referring to the date of the filing of the complaint
which is a time before summons is served on the defendant or even before summons issues.
5.
A writ of preliminary attachment may issue even before summons is served upon the
defendant. However, we have likewise ruled that the writ cannot bind and affect the defendant
until jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained. Therefore, it is required that when the
proper officer commences implementation of the writ of attachment, service of summons should
be simultaneously made. In the case at bar, when the writ of attachment was served on the
spouses Evangelista, the summons and copy of the complaint were also simultaneously served.
Dispositive Portion: Petition granted. CA decision is reversed. Order and writ of attachment
issued by the RTC Judge are reinstated.
SOLIS,
RAFAEL
ALEJANDRO
L.
