G.R. No.

167741 July 12, 2007

Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion when it rejected
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, the Republic’s claim of exemption from the filing of an attachment bond?
vs. Yes.
MAJ. GEN. CARLOS FLORES GARCIA, CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA,
IAN CARL DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA, JUAN PAULO DEPAKAKIBO Sections 3 and 4, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provide:
GARCIA, TIMOTHY DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA and THE SANDIGANBAYAN
(FOURTH DIVISION), Respondents. Sec. 3. Affidavit and bond required. – An order of attachment shall be
granted only when it appears by the affidavit of the applicant, or of some
DECISION other person who personally knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of
action exists, that the case is one of those mentioned in section 1 hereof,
CORONA, J.: that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced
by the action, and that the amount due to applicant, or the value of the
This petition for certiorari1 assails the January 14, 2005 and March 2, 2005 property the possession of which he is entitled to recover, is as much as the
resolutions2 of the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims. The
0193 entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Maj. Gen. Carlos Flores Garcia, affidavit, and the bond required by the next succeeding section, must be
Clarita Depakakibo Garcia, Ian Carl Depakakibo Garcia, Juan Paulo duly filed with the court before the order issues.
Depakakibo Garcia and Timothy Mark Depakakibo Garcia.
Sec. 4. Condition of applicant’s bond. – The party applying for the order
Civil Case No. 0193 was a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired must thereafter give a bond executed to the adverse party in the amount
properties, with a verified urgent ex-parte application for the issuance of a fixed by the court in its order granting the issuance of the writ, conditioned
writ of preliminary attachment, filed by the Republic of the Philippines that the latter will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse
against Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, his wife3 and children4 in the party and all damages which he may sustain by reason of the attachment,
Sandiganbayan on October 27, 2004. In praying for the issuance of a writ if the court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto.
of preliminary attachment, the Republic maintained that, as a sovereign (emphasis supplied)
political entity, it was exempt from filing the required attachment bond.
Under these provisions, before a writ of attachment may issue, a bond must
On October 29, 2004, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution ordering the first be filed to answer for all costs which may be adjudged to the adverse
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the properties of the party and for the damages he may sustain by reason of the attachment.
Garcias upon the filing by the Republic of a ₱1 million attachment bond.5 However, this rule does not cover the State. In Tolentino,7 this Court
On November 2, 2004, the Republic posted the required attachment bond declared that the State as represented by the government is exempt from
to avoid any delay in the issuance of the writ as well as to promptly protect filing an attachment bond on the theory that it is always solvent.
and secure its claim.
2. Section 427 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that before the
On December 7, 2004, the Republic filed a motion for partial reconsideration issuance of a writ of attachment, the applicant therefor or any person in his
of the October 29, 2004 resolution claiming that it was exempt from filing name, should file a bond in favor of the defendant for an amount not less
an attachment bond and praying for the release thereof. than ₱400 nor more than the amount of the claim, answerable for damages
in case it is shown that the attachment was obtained illegally or without
In a resolution dated January 14, 2005, the Sandiganbayan ruled that there sufficient cause; but in the case at bar the one who applied for and obtained
was nothing in the Rules of Court that exempted the Republic from filing an the attachment is the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as plaintiff, and
attachment bond. It reexamined Tolentino v. Carlos6 which was invoked by under the theory that the State is always solvent it was not bound to post
the Republic to justify its claimed exemption. That case was decided under the required bond and the respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction
the old Code of Civil Procedure enacted more than a century ago. in exempting it from such requirement. x x x8 (emphasis supplied)

The Sandiganbayan denied the Republic’s motion. Reconsideration was also In other words, the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment is
denied in a resolution dated March 2, 2005. conditioned on the filing of a bond unless the applicant is the State. Where
the State is the applicant, the filing of the attachment bond is excused.9
As already stated, these two resolutions (January 14, 2005 and March 2,
2005) are the subject of the present petition.

1
The attachment bond is contingent on and answerable for all costs which
may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he may The Constitution mandates that only this Court sitting en banc may modify
sustain by reason of the attachment should the court finally rule that the or reverse a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision
applicant is not entitled to the writ of attachment. Thus, it is a security for rendered en banc or in division. Any court, the Sandiganbayan included,
the payment of the costs and damages to which the adverse party may be which renders a decision in violation of this constitutional precept exceeds
entitled in case there is a subsequent finding that the applicant is not entitled its jurisdiction.
to the writ. The Republic of the Philippines need not give this security as it
is presumed to be always solvent and able to meet its obligations. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan could not have validly "reexamined," much
less reversed, Tolentino. By doing something it could not validly do, the
The Sandiganbayan thus erred when it disregarded the foregoing Sandiganbayan acted ultra vires and committed grave abuse of discretion.
presumption and instead ruled that the Republic should file an attachment
bond. The error was not simply an error of judgment but grave abuse of The fact was, the revisions of the Rules of Court on attachment, particularly
discretion. those pertaining to the filing of an attachment bond, did not quash Tolentino.

There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is done contrary to the Tolentino applied Sec. 247 of Act No. 190 which provided:
Constitution, the law or jurisprudence.10 Here, the Sandiganbayan’s
January 14, 2005 resolution was clearly contrary to Tolentino. Sec. 247. Obligation for damages in case of attachment. – Before the order
is made, the party applying for it, or some person on his behalf, must
Worse, the Sandiganbayan transgressed the Constitution and arrogated execute to the defendant an obligation in an amount to be fixed by the
upon itself a power that it did not by law possess. All courts must take their judge, or justice of the peace, and with sufficient surety to be approved by
bearings from the decisions and rulings of this Court. Tolentino has not been him, which obligation shall be for a sum not less than two hundred dollars,
superseded or reversed. Thus, it is existing jurisprudence and continues to and not exceeding the amount claimed by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff will
form an important part of our legal system.11 Surprisingly, the pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the defendant, and all damages
Sandiganbayan declared that Tolentino "need(ed) to be carefully which he may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the same shall finally
reexamined in the light of the changes that the rule on attachment ha(d) be adjudged to have been wrongful or without sufficient cause. (emphasis
undergone through the years."12 According to the court a quo: supplied)

[Tolentino] was decided by the Supreme Court employing the old Code of Contrary to the pronouncement of the Sandiganbayan, Section 247 of Act
Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) which was enacted by the Philippine No. 190 explicitly required the execution of an attachment bond before a
Commission on August 7, 1901 or more than a century ago. writ of preliminary attachment could be issued.

That was then, this is now. The provisions of the old Code of Civil Procedure The relevant provisions of Act No. 190 on attachment were later
governing attachment have been substantially modified in the subsequent substantially adopted as Sections 313 and 4, Rule 59 of the 1940 Rules of
Rules of Court. In fact, Rule 57 of the present 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Court.
is an expanded modification of the provisions of the old Code of Civil
Procedure governing attachment. Unlike the old Code of Civil Procedure, the Sec. 3. Order issued only when affidavit and bond filed. – An order of
present 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is noticeably explicit in its requirement attachment shall be granted only when it is made to appear by the affidavit
that the party applying for an order of attachment should file a bond. of the plaintiff, or of some other person who personally knows the facts, that
the case is one of those mentioned in section 1 hereof, that there is no other
On this, Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution provides: sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and that
the amount due to the plaintiff, or the value of the property which he is
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with entitled to recover possession of, is as much as the sum for which the order
the concurrence of majority of the Members who actually took part in the is granted above all legal counterclaims; which affidavit, and the bond
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case required by the next succeeding section, must be duly filed with the clerk or
without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the judge of the court before the order issues. (emphasis supplied)
required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc;
Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a Sec. 4. Bond required from plaintiff. – The party applying for the order must
decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except give a bond executed to the defendant in an amount to be fixed by the
by the court sitting en banc. (emphasis supplied) judge, not exceeding the plaintiff’s claim, that the plaintiff will pay all the

2
costs which may be adjudged to the defendant and all damages which he for damages or even an appeal bond because it is presumed to be solvent.
may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge In other words, the State is not required to file a bond because it is capable
that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. of paying its obligations.20

And with the promulgation of the 1964 Rules of Court, the rules on The pronouncement in Spouses Badillo applies in this case even if Spouses
attachment were renumbered as Rule 57, remaining substantially the same: Badillo involved the filing of a supersedeas bond. The pronouncement that
the State "is not required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal
Sec. 3. Affidavit and bond required. – An order of attachment shall be bond" is general enough to encompass attachment bonds. Moreover, the
granted only when it appears by the affidavit of the applicant, or of some purpose of an attachment bond (to answer for all costs and damages which
other person who personally knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of the adverse party may sustain by reason of the attachment if the court
action exists, that the case is one of those mentioned in section 1 hereof, finally rules that the applicant is not entitled to the writ) and a supersedeas
that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced bond (to answer for damages to the winning party in case the appeal is
by the action, and that the amount due to applicant, or the value of the found frivolous) is essentially the same.1awphil.zw+
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 In filing forfeiture cases against erring public officials and employees, the
affidavit, and the bond required by the next succeeding section, must be Office of the Ombudsman performs the State’s sovereign functions of
duly filed with the clerk or judge of the court before the order issues. enforcing laws, guarding and protecting the integrity of the public service
(emphasis supplied) and addressing the problem of corruption in the bureaucracy.

Sec. 4. Condition of applicant’s bond. – The party applying for the order The filing of an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
must thereafter give a bond executed to the adverse party in an amount to attachment is a necessary incident in forfeiture cases. It is needed to protect
be fixed by the judge, not exceeding the applicant’s claim, conditioned that the interest of the government and to prevent the removal, concealment
the latter will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and disposition of properties in the hands of unscrupulous public officers.
and all damages which he may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the Otherwise, even if the government subsequently wins the case, it will be left
court shall finally adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto. holding an empty bag.

Clearly, the filing of an attachment bond before the issuance of a writ of Accordingly, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The January 14, 2005 and
preliminary attachment was expressly required under the relevant March 2, 2005 resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are REVERSED and SET
provisions of both the 1940 and 1964 Rules of Court. ASIDE. The Republic of the Philippines is declared exempt from the payment
or filing of an attachment bond for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
Commentaries on Sections 3 and 4 of the 1964 Rules of Court uniformly attachment issued in Civil Case No. 0193. The Sandiganbayan is hereby
cited Tolentino. They stated that the government is exempt from filing an ordered to release the ₱1,000,000 bond posted by the Republic of the
attachment bond14 and that the State need not file an attachment bond.15 Philippines to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Where the Republic of the Philippines as a party to an action asks for a writ SO ORDERED.
of attachment against the properties of a defendant, it need not furnish a
bond. This is so because the State is presumed to be solvent.16

When plaintiff is the Republic of the Philippines, it need not file a bond when
it applies for a preliminary attachment. This is on the premise that the State
is solvent.17

And then again, we note the significant fact that Sections 3 and 4, Rule 57
of the 1964 Rules of Court were substantially incorporated as Sections 3 and
4, Rule 57 of the present (1997) Rules of Court.18 There is thus no reason
why the Republic should be made to file an attachment bond.1avvphi1

In fact, in Spouses Badillo v. Hon. Tayag,19 a fairly recent case, this Court
declared that, when the State litigates, it is not required to put up a bond