TodayisSaturday,July23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.84481April18,1989
MINDANAOSAVINGS&LOANASSOCIATION,INC.(formerlyDavaoSavings&LoanAssociation)&
FRANCISCOVILLAMOR,petitioners,
vs.
HON.COURTOFAPPEALS,POLYR.MERCADO,andJUANP.MERCADO,respondents.
Villarica,Tiongco&CaboverdeLawOfficeforpetitioners.
ABCLawOfficesforprivaterespondents.

GRIOAQUINO,J.:
OnSeptember10,1986,privaterespondentsfiledintheRegionalTrialCourtofDavaoCity,acomplaintagainst
defendantsD.S.Homes,Inc.,anditsdirectors,LaurentinoG.Cuevas,SaturninoR.Petalcorin,Engr.UldaricoD.
Dumdum, Aurora P. De Leon, Ramon D. Basa, Francisco D. Villamor, Richard F. Magallanes, Geronimo S.
Palermo Felicisima V. Ramos and Eugenio M. De los Santos (hereinafter referred to as D.S. Homes, et al.) for
"Rescission of Contract and Damages" with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment,
docketedasCivilCaseNo.18263.
OnSeptember28,1986,JudgeDinopolissuedanordergrantingexpartetheapplicationforawritofpreliminary
attachment.
On September 22, 1986, the private respondents amended their complaint and on October 10, 1986, filed a
second amended complaint impleading as additional defendants herein petitioners Davao Savings & Loan
Association,Inc.anditspresident,FranciscoVillamor,butdroppingEugenioM.DelosSantos.
On November 5, 1986, Judge Dinopol issued ex parte an amended order of attachment against all the
defendants named in the second amended complaint, including the petitioners but excluding Eugenio C. de los
Santos.
D. S. Homes. Inc., et al. and the Davao Savings & Loan Association (later renamed Mindanao Savings & Loan
Association,Inc.or"MSLA")andFranciscoVillamorfiledseparatemotionstoquashthewritofattachment.When
their motions were denied by the Court, D.S. Homes, Inc., et al. offered a counterbond in the amount of
Pl,752,861.41percertificateissuedbytheLandBankofthePhilippines,abankingpartnerofpetitionerMSLAThe
lowercourtacceptedtheLandBankCertificateof.DepositforPl,752,861.41ascounterbondandliftedthewritof
preliminaryattachmentonJune5,1987(AnnexV)
OnJuly29,1987,MSLAandVillamorfiledintheCourtofAppealsapetitionforcertiorari(AnnexA)toannulthe
orderofattachmentandthedenialoftheirmotiontoquashthesame(CAG.R.SPNo.12467).Thepetitioners
alleged that the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the ex parte orders of preliminary
attachmentandindenyingtheirmotiontoquashthewritofattachment,D.S.Homes,Inc.,etal.didnotjointhem.
OnMay5,1988,theCourtofAppealsdismissedthepetitionforcertiorariandremandedtherecordsofCivilCase
No.18263totheRegionalTrialCourtofDavaoCity,Branch13,forexpeditiousproceedings.Itheld:
Objections against the writ may no longer be invoked once a counterbond is filed for its lifting or
dissolution.
Thegroundsinvokedfortheissuanceofthewritformthecoreofthecomplaintanditisrightaway
obvious that a trial on the merits was necessary. The merits of a main action are not triable in a
motion to discharge an attachment otherwise an applicant for dissolution could force a trial on the
meritsonhismotion(4Am.Jur.,Sec.635,934,citedinG.G.Inc.vs.Sanchez,etal.,98Phil.886,
890,891).(AnnexB,p.185,Rollo.)
Dissatisfied,thepetitionersappealedtothisCourt.
AcarefulconsiderationofthepetitionforreviewfailstoyieldanynovellegalquestionsforthisCourttoresolve.
TheonlyrequisitesfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryattachmentunderSection3,Rule57oftheRulesof
Courtaretheaffidavitandbondoftheapplicant.
SEC.3.Affidavitandbondrequired.Anorderofattachmentshallbegrantedonlywhenitismade
toappearbytheaffidavitoftheapplicant,orofsomeotherpersonwhopersonallyknowsthefacts,
that a sufficient cause of action exists that the case is one of those mentioned in section 1 hereof,
thatthereisnoothersufficientsecurityfortheclaimsoughttobeenforcedbytheaction,andthatthe
amount due to the applicant, or the value of the. property the possession of which he is entitled to
recover, is as much as the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims. The
affidavit, and the bond required by the next succeeding section must be duly filed with the clerk or
judgeofthecourtbeforetheorderissues.
Nonoticetotheadversepartyorhearingoftheapplicationisrequired.Asamatteroffactahearingwoulddefeat

thepurposeofthisprovisionalremedy.Thetimewhichsuchahearingwouldtake,couldbeenoughtoenablethe
defendant to abscond or dispose of his property before a writ of attachment issues. Nevertheless, while no
hearing is required by the Rules of Court for the issuance of an attachment (Belisle Investment & Finance Co.,
Inc.vs.StateInvestmentHouse,Inc.,72927,June30,1987FilinvestCreditCorp.vs.Relova,117SCRA420),a
motiontoquashthewritmaynotbegrantedwithout"reasonablenoticetotheapplicant"andonly"afterhearing"
(Secs.12and13,Rule57,RulesofCourt).
The Court of Appeals did not err in holding that objections to the impropriety or irregularity of the writ of
attachment"maynolongerbeinvokedonceacounterbondisfiled,"whenthegroundfortheissuanceofthewrit
formsthecoreofthecomplaint.
Indeed, after the defendant has obtained the discharge of the writ of attachment by filing a counterbond under
Section12,Rule57oftheRulesofCourt,hemaynotfileanothermotionunderSection13,Rule57toquashthe
writforimproprietyorirregularityinissuingit.
The reason is simple. The writ had already been quashed by filing a counterbond, hence, another motion to
quash it would be pointless. Moreover, as the Court of Appeals correctly observed, when the ground for the
issuanceofthewritisalsothecoreofthecomplaint,thequestionofwhethertheplaintiffwasentitledtothewrit
canonlybedeterminedafter,notbefore,afullblowntrialonthemeritsofthecase.Thisaccordswithourruling
G.B.Inc.vs.Sanchez,98Phil.886that:"Themeritsofamainactionarenottriableinamotiontodischargean
attachment,otherwiseanapplicantforthedissolutioncouldforceatrialonthemeritsofthecaseonthismotion."
May the defendant, after procuring the dissolution of the attachment by filing a counterbond, ask for the
cancellationofthecounterbondonthegroundthattheorderofattachmentwasimproperlyissued?Thatquestion
wasansweredbythisCourtwhenitruledinUyKimpangvs.Javier,65Phil.170,that"theobligorsinthebondare
absolutelyliablefortheamountofanyjudgmentthattheplaintiffmayrecoverintheactionwithout reference to
thequestionofwhethertheattachmentwasrightfullyorwrongfullyissued."
The liability of the surety on the counterbond subsists until the Court shall have finally absolved the defendant
from the plaintiff s claims. Only then may the counterbond be released. The same rule applies to the plaintiffs
attachmentbond."TheliabilityofthesuretyonthebondsubsistsbecausethefinalreckoningiswhentheCourt
shallfinallyadjudgethattheattachingcreditorwasnotentitledtotheissuanceoftheattachmentwrit,"(Calderon
vs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,155SCRA531.)
WHEREFORE,findingnoreversibleerrorinthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.12467,the
petitionforreviewisdeniedforlackofmeritwithcostsagainstthepetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Cruz,GancaycoandMedialdea,JJ.,concur.

SeparateOpinions

NARVASA,J.:ConcurringAndDissentingOpinion
IagreethatthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealssubjectoftheappealinthiscaseshouldbeaffirmed.Iwritethis
separateopinionsimplytostresscertainprinciplesrelativetothedischargeofpreliminaryattachmentssothatour
own decision or that thereby affirmed be not applied to juridical situations beyond their intendment, which may
wellresultfromthestatementthat"after the defendant has obtained the discharge of the writ of attachment by
filing a counterbond under Section 12, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, he may not file another motion under
Section13,Rule57toquashthewritforimproprietyorirregularityinissuingit."
Rule57specifiesincleartermsthemodesbywhichapreliminaryattachmentmaybedischargedattheinstance
of the party against whom it has been issued. The first is by the submission of a counterbond or security. The
secondisbyademonstrationoftheattachment'simproperorirregularissuance.
1.0.ThedischargeofanattachmentonsecuritygivenisgovernedbySection12oftheRule.
SEC 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving counterbond. At any time after an order of
attachmenthasbeengranted,thepartywhosepropertyhasbeenattached,orthepersonappearing
inhisbehalf,may,uponreasonablenoticetotheapplicant,applytothejudgewhograntedtheorder,
ortothejudgeofthecourtinwhichtheactionispending,foranorderdischargingtheattachment
whollyorinpartonthesecuritygiven..inanamountequaltothevalueofthepropertyattachedas
determined by the judge to secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching creditor may
recoverintheaction....
This mode of dissolution presents no apparent difficulty. It applies when there has already been a seizure of
propertybythesheriff.Allthatisentailedisthepresentationofamotiontothepropercourt,seekingapprovalofa
cashorsuretybondinanamountequivalenttothevalueofthepropertyseizedandtheliftingoftheattachment
on the basis thereof. The counterbond stands, according to the cited section, "in place of the property so
released."
1.1.Butapartyneednotwaituntilhispropertyhasbeenseizedbeforeseekingitsdissolutionuponsecurity.In
fact he may prevent the seizure of his property under attachment by giving security in an amount sufficient to
satisfytheclaimsagainsthim.TherelevantprovisionoftheRuleisSection5.1
SEC.5.Mannerofattachingproperty.Theofficerexecutingtheordershallwithoutdelayattach,to
awaitjudgmentandexecutionintheaction,allthepropertiesofthepartyagainstwhomtheorderis
issuedintheprovince,notexemptfromexecution,orsomuchthereofasmaybesufficienttosatisfy
theapplicant'sdemand,unlesstheformermakesadepositwiththeclerkorjudgeofthecourtfrom
whichtheorderissued,orgivesacounterbondexecutedtotheapplicant,inanamountsufficientto

satisfysuchdemandbesidescostsorinanamountequaltothevalueofthepropertywhichisabout
to be attached, to secure payment to the applicant of any judgment which he may recover in the
action....
2.0. The second way of lifting a preliminary attachment is by proving its irregular or improper issuance, under
Section 13 of Rule 57. Like the first, this second mode may be availed of evenbefore any property has been
actually attached. It may even be resorted to after the property has already been released from the levy on
attachment,asthepertinentprovisionmakesclear.2
SEC.13.Discharge of attachment for improper or irregular issuance. The party whose property
hasbeenattachedmayalso,atanytimeeitherbeforeorafterthereleaseoftheattachedproperly,
or before any attachment shall have been actually levied, upon reasonable notice to the attaching
creditor,applytothejudgewhograntedtheorder,ortothejudgeofthecourtinwhichtheactionis
pending, for an order to discharge the attachment on the ground that the same was improperly or
irregularly issued. If the motion be made on affidavits on the part of the party whose property has
beenattached,butnototherwise,theattachingcreditormayopposethesamebycounteraffidavits
orotherevidenceinadditiontothatonwhichtheattachmentwasmade....
AspointedoutinCalderonv.I.A.C. 155 SCRA 531 (1987), "The attachment debtor cannot be deemed to have
waivedanydefectintheissuanceoftheattachmentwritbysimplyavailinghimselfofonewayofdischargingthe
attachmentwrit,insteadoftheother.Moreover,thefilingofacounterbondisaspeedierwayofdischargingthe
attachmentwritmaliciouslysoughtoutbytheattachingcreditorinsteadoftheotherway,which,inmostinstances
.. would require presentation of evidence in a fullblown trial on the merits and cannot easily be settled in a
pendingincidentofthecase."
3.0.However,whenthepreliminaryattachmentisissueduponagroundwhichisatthesametimetheapplicant's
causeofactione.g.,"anactionformoneyorpropertyembezzledorfraudulentlymisappliedorconvertedtohis
own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the
courseofhisemploymentassuch,orbyanyotherpersoninafiduciarycapacity,orforawillfulviolationofduty,"
3or"anactionagainstapartywhohasbeenguiltyoffraudincontractingthedebtorincurringtheobligationuponwhichthe

actionisbrought, 4thedefendantisnotallowedtofileamotiontodissolvetheattachmentunderSection13ofRule57by
offeringtoshowthefalsityofthefactualavermentsintheplaintiffsapplicationandaffidavitsonwhichthewritwasbased
andconsequentlythatthewritbasedthereonhadbeenimproperlyorirregularlyissued5thereasonbeingthatthehearing
on such a motion for dissolution of the writ would be tantamount to a trial of the merits of the action. In other words, the
meritsoftheactionwouldbeventilatedatamerehearingofamotion,insteadofattheregulartrial.Therefore,whenthewrit
ofattachmentisofthisnature,theonlywayitcanbedissolvedisbyacounterbond.6

4.0. The dissolution of the preliminary attachment upon security given, or a showing of its irregular or improper
issuance,doesnotofcourseoperatetodischargethesuretiesonplaintiffsownattachmentbond.Thereasonis
simple.Thatbondis'executedtotheadverseparty,..conditionedthatthe..(applicant)willpayallthecostswhich
maybeadjudgedtotheadversepartyandalldamageswhichhemaysustainbyreasonoftheattachment,ifthe
courtshallfinallyadjudgethattheapplicantwasnotentitledthereto." 7Hence,untilthatdeterminationismade,asto
theapplicant'sentitlementtotheattachment,hisbondmuststandandcannotbewithdrawn.

SeparateOpinions
NARVASA,J.:ConcurringAndDissentingOpinion
IagreethatthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealssubjectoftheappealinthiscaseshouldbeaffirmed.Iwritethis
separateopinionsimplytostresscertainprinciplesrelativetothedischargeofpreliminaryattachmentssothatour
owndecisionorthattherebyaffirmedbenotappliedtojuridicalsituationsbeyondtheirintendment,whichmay
wellresultfromthestatementthat"afterthedefendanthasobtainedthedischargeofthewritofattachmentby
filingacounterbondunderSection12,Rule57oftheRulesofCourt,hemaynotfileanothermotionunder
Section13,Rule57toquashthewritforimproprietyorirregularityinissuingit."
Rule57specifiesincleartermsthemodesbywhichapreliminaryattachmentmaybedischargedattheinstance
ofthepartyagainstwhomithasbeenissued.Thefirstisbythesubmissionofacounterbondorsecurity.The
secondisbyademonstrationoftheattachment'simproperorirregularissuance.
1.0.ThedischargeofanattachmentonsecuritygivenisgovernedbySection12oftheRule.
SEC12.Dischargeofattachmentupongivingcounterbond.Atanytimeafteranorderof
attachmenthasbeengranted,thepartywhosepropertyhasbeenattached,orthepersonappearing
inhisbehalf,may,uponreasonablenoticetotheapplicant,applytothejudgeewhograntedthe
order,ortothejudgeofthecourtinwhichtheactionispending,foranorderdischargingthe
attachmentwhollyorinpartonthesecuritygiven..inanamountequaltothevalueoftheproperty
attachedasdeterminedbythejudgetosecurethepaymentofanyjudgmentthattheattaching
creditormayrecoverintheaction....
Thismodeofdissolutionpresentsnoapparentdifficulty.Itapplieswhentherehasalreadybeenaseizureof
propertybythesheriff.Allthatisentailedisthepresentationofamotiontothepropercourt,seekingapprovalofa
cashorsuretybondinanamountequivalenttothevalueofthepropertyseizedandtheliftingoftheattachment
onthebasisthereof.Thecounterbondstands,accordingtothecitedsection,"inplaceofthepropertyso
released."
1.1.Butapartyneednotwaituntilhispropertyhasbeenseizedbeforeseekingitsdissolutionuponsecurity.In
facthemaypreventtheseizureofhispropertyunderattachmentbygivingsecurityinanamountsufficientto
satisfytheclaimsagainsthim.TherelevantprovisionoftheRuleisSection5.1
SEC.5.Mannerofattachingproperty.Theofficerexecutingtheordershallwithoutdelayattach,to
awaitjudgmentandexecutionintheaction,allthepropertiesofthepartyagainstwhomtheorderis
issuedintheprovince,notexemptfromexecution,orsomuchthereofasmaybesufficienttosatisfy

theapplicant'sdemand,unlesstheformermakesadepositwiththeclerkorjudgeofthecourtfrom
whichtheorderissued,orgivesacounterbondexecutedtotheapplicant,inanamountsufficientto
satisfysuchdemandbesidescostsorinanamountequaltothevalueofthepropertywhichisabout
tobeattached,tosecurepaymenttotheapplicantofanyjudgmentwhichhemayrecoverinthe
action....
2.0.Thesecondwayofliftingapreliminaryattachmentisbyprovingitsirregularorimproperissuance,under
Section13ofRule57.Likethefirst,thissecondmodemaybeavailedofevenbeforeanypropertyhasbeen
actuallyattached.Itmayevenberesortedtoafterthepropertyhasalreadybeenreleasedfromthelevyon
attachment,asthepertinentprovisionmakesclear.2
SEC.13.Dischargeofattachmentforimproperorirregularissuance.Thepartywhoseproperty
hasbeenattachedmayalso,atanytimeeitherbeforeorafterthereleaseoftheattachedproperly,
orbeforeanyattachmentshallhavebeenactuallylevied,uponreasonablenoticetotheattaching
creditor,applytothejudgewhograntedtheorder,ortothejudgeofthecourtinwhichtheactionis
pending,foranordertodischargetheattachmentonthegroundthatthesamewasimproperlyor
irregularlyissued.Ifthemotionbemadeonaffidavitsonthepartofthepartywhosepropertyhas
beenattached,butnototherwise,theattachingcreditormayopposethesamebycounteraffidavits
orotherevidenceinadditiontothatonwhichtheattachmentwasmade....
AspointedoutinCalderonv.I.A.C.155SCRA531(1987),"Theattachmentdebtorcannotbedeemedtohave
waivedanydefectintheissuanceoftheattachmentwritbysimplyavailinghimselfofonewayofdischargingthe
attachmentwrit,insteadoftheother.Moreover,thefilingofacounterbondisaspeedierwayofdischargingthe
attachmentwritmaliciouslysoughtoutbytheattachingcreditorinsteadoftheotherway,which,inmostinstances
..wouldrequirepresentationofevidenceinafullblowntrialonthemeritsandcannoteasilybesettledina
pendingincidentofthecase."
3.0.However,whenthepreliminaryattachmentisissueduponagroundwhichisatthesametimetheapplicant's
causeofactione.g.,"anactionformoneyorpropertyembezzledorfraudulentlymisappliedorconvertedtohis
ownusebyapublicofficer,oranofficerofacorporation,oranattorney,factor,broker,agent,orclerk,inthe
courseofhisemploymentassuch,orbyanyotherpersoninafiduciarycapacity,orforawillfulviolationofduty,"
3or"anactionagainstapartywhohasbeenguiltyoffraudincontractingthedebtorincurringtheobligationuponwhichthe

actionisbrought,4thedefendantisnotallowedtofileamotiontodissolvetheattachmentunderSection13ofRule57by
offeringtoshowthefalsityofthefactualavermentsintheplaintiffsapplicationandaffidavitsonwhichthewritwasbased
andconsequentlythatthewritbasedthereonhadbeenimproperlyorirregularlyissued5thereasonbeingthatthehearing
onsuchamotionfordissolutionofthewritwouldbetantamounttoatrialofthemeritsoftheaction.Inotherwords,the
meritsoftheactionwouldbeventilatedatamerehearingofamotion,insteadofattheregulartrial.Therefore,whenthewrit
ofattachmentisofthisnature,theonlywayitcanbedissolvedisbyacounterbond.6

4.0.Thedissolutionofthepreliminaryattachmentuponsecuritygiven,orashowingofitsirregularorimproper
issuance,doesnotofcourseoperatetodischargethesuretiesonplaintiffsownattachmentbond.Thereasonis
simple.Thatbondis'executedtotheadverseparty,..conditionedthatthe..(applicant)willpayallthecostswhich
maybeadjudgedtotheadversepartyandalldamageswhichhemaysustainbyreasonoftheattachment,ifthe
courtshallfinallyadjudgethattheapplicantwasnotentitledthereto."7Hence,untilthatdeterminationismade,asto
theapplicant'sentitlementtotheattachment,hisbondmuststandandcannotbewithdrawn.

Footnotes
1Emphasissupplied.
2Emphasisalsosupplied.
3Sec.1(b),Rule57.
4Sec.1(d),Rule57.
5SEEBenitezv.I.A.C.154SCRA41.
6G.B.Inc.v.Sanchez,98Phil.886.
7Sec.4,Rule57.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation