Rule 57Preliminary Attachment

NB: No novel doctrines from set of cases on Rule 57 from 2013-2014

Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v CAG.R. No. 93262

November 28, 1991

What the rule is saying quite clearly is that after an action is properly commenced—by the filing of the complaint and the payment of all requisite docket and other fees—the plaintiff may apply for and obtain a writ of preliminary attachment upon fulfillment of the pertinent requisites laid down by law, and that he may do so at any time, either before or after service of summons on the defendant. Writs of attachment may properly issue ex parte provided that the Court is satisfied that the relevant requisites therefor have been fulfilled by the applicant, although it may, in its discretion, require prior hearing on the application with notice to the defendant; but that levy on property pursuant to the writ thus issued may not be validly effected unless preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service on the defendant of summons, a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment, the order of attachment, and the plaintiff ‘s attachment bond.

Olib v PastoralGR No. 81120

August 20, 1990

Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. It is an auxiliary remedy and cannot have an independent existence apart from the main suit or claim instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant.

Being merely ancillary to a principal proceeding, the attachment must fail if the suit itself cannot be maintained as the purpose of the writ can no longer be justified. Thus, where the main action is appealed, the attachment which may have been issued as an incident of that action, is also considered appealed and so also removed from the jurisdiction of the court a quo.

Torres v SatsatinGR No. 166759

November 25, 2009

The distinction between the issuance and the implementation of the writ of attachment is of utmost importance to the validity of the writ as such would determine when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired in order to validly implement the writ upon his person.

The grant of attachment involves three stages: (1) the court issues the order granting the application; (2) the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and (3) the writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not necessary. However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, otherwise, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant.

Assuming arguendo that the writ of attachment was validly issued, although the trial court later acquired jurisdiction over the respondents by service of the summons upon them, such belated service of summons on respondents cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ. The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow it.

Traders Royal Bank v IACNo. L-66321

October 31, 1984

The remedy of a person who claims to be an owner of property levied upon by attachment is to file a third party claim with the sheriff and if attaching creditor posts an indemnity bond, to file a separate and independent action. This precisely was the remedy resorted to by private respondent La Tondeña when it filed the vindicatory action before the Bulacan Court.

Pacis v COMELECNo. L-29026

August 22, 1969

If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the party against whom the attachment was issued, he must claim damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal by filing an application with notice to the party in whose favor the attachment was issued or his surety or sureties, before judgment of the appellate court becomes executory. The appellate court may allow the application to be heard and decided by the trial court.

Rule 58Preliminary Injunction

Solid Builders, Inc v China Banking Corporation695 SCRA 103April 3, 2013

Respondents assert that foreclosure of their property may cause irreparable damage, thus justifying the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The SC held that foreclosure of mortgaged property is not an irreparable damage that will merit for the debtor-mortgagor the extraordinary provisional remedy of preliminary injunction as “all is not lost for defaulting mortgagors whose properties were foreclosed by creditors-mortgagees.” The respondents will not be deprived outrightly of their property, given the right of redemption granted to them under the law. Moreover, in

extrajudicial foreclosures, mortgagors have the right to receive any surplus in the selling price. Thus, if the mortgagee is retaining more of the proceeds of the sale than he is entitled to, this fact alone will not affect the validity of the sale but will give the mortgagor a cause of action to recover such surplus.

Special Audit Team, Commission on Audit v CA696 SCRA 166April 11, 2013

As this Court has previously ruled, “while the existence of the right need not be conclusively established, it must be clear.” Lacking a clear legal right, the provisional remedy should not have been issued, all the more because the factual support for issuing the writ had not been established. In giving injunctive relief, courts cannot reverse the burden of proof, for to do so would assume the proposition which the petitioner is inceptively duty bound to prove for every case before a court of law requires a cause of action.

Office of the Ombudsman v De Chavez700 SCRA 399

2013

Respondents sought to enjoin the enforcement of their dismissal from service. The Court ruled that for a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the following essential requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the present case, the right of respondents cannot be said to be clear and unmistakable, because the prevailing jurisprudence is that the penalty of dismissal from the service meted on government employees or officials is immediately executory in accordance with the valid rule of execution pending appeal uniformly observed in administrative disciplinary cases.

Hernandez v National Power CorporationGR No. 145328March 23, 2006

For a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued, the Rules do not require that the act complained of be in violation of the rights of the applicant. What the Rules require is that the act complained of be probably in violation of the rights of the applicant. Under the Rules, probability is enough basis for injunction to issue as a provisional remedy, which is different from injunction as a main action where one needs to establish absolute certainty as basis for a final and permanent injunction.

Sabalones v CAGR No. 106169

February 14, 1994

The primary purpose of the provisional remedy of injunction is to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the action or the relations between the parties and thus protect the rights of the plaintiff respecting these matters during the pendency of the suit. “Injunction is primarily a preventive remedy. Its province is to afford relief against future acts which are against equity and good conscience and to keep and preserve the thing in the status quo, rather than to remedy what is past or to punish for wrongful acts already committed. It may issue to prevent future wrongs although no right has yet been violated.”

Ulang v CAGR No. 99299

August 26, 1993

An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. The possibility of irreparable damage, without proof of violation of an actual existing right, is no ground for an injunction, being mere damnum absque injuria.

Decano v EduNo. L-30070

August 29, 1980

Where the annulment of the dismissal of an employee is the cause of action and mandamus and injunction from mere corollary remedies thereto, a CFI of Pangasinan has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and injunction against an officer of the Land Transportation Commission even if the latter holds office in Quezon City.

Verzosa v CAGR Nos. 119511-13November 24, 1998

Where the acts have been performed prior to the filing of the injunction suit, the general rule is that consummated acts can no longer be restrained by injunction. However, “where the acts are performed after the injunction suit is brought, a defendant may not as a matter of right proceed to perform the acts sought to be restrained and then be heard to assert in the suit that the injunction will not lie because he has performed these acts before final hearing has been had, but after the beginning of the action. A defendant thus acts at his peril.”

Tay Chun Suy v CAGR No. 93640

January 7, 1994

The general rule that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of another court with concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction possessing equal power to grant injunctive relief, applies only when no third-[arty claimant is involved. When a third party, or a stranger to the action, asserts a claim over the property levied upon, the claimant may vindicate his claim by an independent action in the proper civil court which may stop the execution of the judgment on property not belonging to the judgment debtor.

Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines v CA

GR No. 88384July 14, 1995

Ordinarily, the efficacy of a temporary restraining order is non-extendible and the courts have no discretion to extend the same considering the mandatory tenor of the Rule. However, there is no reason to prevent a court from extending the 20-day period when the parties themselves ask for such extension or for the maintenance of the status quo.