Scribd
Upload
190 views2 pages

01 PCIB V Alejandro

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. The petitioner bank filed a complaint against the respondent and applied for a writ of attachment, alleging the respondent fraudulently withdrew deposits and was not a resident of the Philippines. However, the court found the respondent did maintain residences in the Philippines. The writ was issued based on misrepresentations, and the rules require strict construction of attachment applications. The court ruled the issuance of the writ was improper since the petitioner omitted highly material facts about the respondent's residence in the Philippines.

Uploaded by

cris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
190 views2 pages

01 PCIB V Alejandro

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. The petitioner bank filed a complaint against the respondent and applied for a writ of attachment, alleging the respondent fraudulently withdrew deposits and was not a resident of the Philippines. However, the court found the respondent did maintain residences in the Philippines. The writ was issued based on misrepresentations, and the rules require strict construction of attachment applications. The court ruled the issuance of the writ was improper since the petitioner omitted highly material facts about the respondent's residence in the Philippines.

Uploaded by

cris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Rule 57 Section 1: Grounds upon which attachment may issue

Philippine Commercial International Bank vs Joseph Anthony Alejandro


GR No 175587, 21 September 2007

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
Facts:
Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for sum of money
praying for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment under Sec 1
paragraphs (e) and (f) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, petitioner
alleged that respondent fraudulently withdrew his unassigned deposits
and (2) that he is not a resident of the Philippines
The trial court granted the application and issued the writ ex parte
after petitioner posted a bond, issued by Prudential Guarantee &
Assurance Inc.
Respondent filed a motion to quash the writ contending that the
withdrawal of his unassigned deposits was not fraudulent as it was
approved by petitioner. He also alleged that petitioner knew that he
maintains his permanent residence in QC and office in Makati City. In
both addresses, petitioner regularly communicated with him.
Trial court issued an order quashing the writ. Petitioners motion for
reconsideration was denied by the CA.
Respondent filed a claim for damages on the attachment bond on
account of the wrongful garnishment of his deposits. Trial court
awarded damages to respondent.
Petitioner elevated the case to the CA which affirmed the findings of
the trial, however reducing the amount of damages awarded.
Issue:
W/N the issuance of writ of attachment is proper
Held:
No.
Ruling:
The purposes of preliminary attachment are: (1) to seize the property
of the debtor in advance of final judgment and to hold it for purposes
of satisfying said judgment, as in the grounds stated in paragraphs (a)
to (e) of Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court; or (2) to acquire
jurisdiction over the action by actual or constructive seizure of the
property in those instances where personal or substituted service of
summons on the defendant cannot be effected, as in paragraph (f) of
the same provision.
Petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of a material
fact.
The writ was issued by the trial court mainly on the representation of
petitioner that respondent is not a resident of the Philippines.
Obviously, the trial courts issuance of the writ was for the sole
purpose of acquiring jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
The rules on the application of a writ of attachment must be strictly
construed in favor of the defendant. It should be resorted to only when
necessary and as a last remedy.
The facts and circumstances omitted are highly material and relevant
to the grant or denial of writ of attachment applied for.
The misrepresentation of petitioner that respondent does not reside in
the Philippines and its omission of his local addresses was thus a
deliberate move to ensure that the application for the writ will be
granted.

You might also like