Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    07 Sievert V CA PDF

    Uploaded by

    Giancarlo Fernando
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings that the RTC had jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of attachment. The Supreme Court ruled that a court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of attachment if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the defendant in the main case. For a court to have authority to act against a defendant or their property in an attachment proceeding, it must first have jurisdiction over the defendant in the main case, which is acquired through proper service of summons and complaint. In this case, the defendant was not served summons or complaint in the main case, so the RTC did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition for a writ of attachment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    07 Sievert V CA PDF

    Uploaded by

    Giancarlo Fernando
    54 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings that the RTC had jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of attachment. The Supreme Court ruled that a court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of attachment if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the defendant in the main case. For a court to have authority to act against a defendant or their property in an attachment proceeding, it must first have jurisdiction over the defendant in the main case, which is acquired through proper service of summons and complaint. In this case, the defendant was not served summons or complaint in the main case, so the RTC did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition for a writ of attachment.

    Original Title

    07 Sievert v CA.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings that the RTC had jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of attachment. The Supreme Court ruled that a court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of attachment if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the defendant in the main case. For a court to have authority to act against a defendant or their property in an attachment proceeding, it must first have jurisdiction over the defendant in the main case, which is acquired through proper service of summons and complaint. In this case, the defendant was not served summons or complaint in the main case, so the RTC did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition for a writ of attachment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    54 views2 pages

    07 Sievert V CA PDF

    Uploaded by

    Giancarlo Fernando
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings that the RTC had jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of attachment. The Supreme Court ruled that a court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of attachment if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the defendant in the main case. For a court to have authority to act against a defendant or their property in an attachment proceeding, it must first have jurisdiction over the defendant in the main case, which is acquired through proper service of summons and complaint. In this case, the defendant was not served summons or complaint in the main case, so the RTC did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition for a writ of attachment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    7 Sievert v CA (Francisco) attachment is valid.

    December 22, 1988 | Justice Feliciano | When Writ of Preliminary 5. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, wherein the CA
    Attachment may be Applied for affirmed the RTC.
    ISSUE:
    PETITIONER: Albert Sievert 1. WoN a court which has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of
    RESPONDENTS: Moises Kallos, Court of Appeals, and RTC Judge Artemon the defendant in the main case, may bind such defendant or his
    Luna property by issuing a writ of preliminary attachmnent. NO.

    SUMMARY: Sievert received a petition for issuance of a preliminary attachment RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
    for a civil case. Petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear or GRANTED due course and the Order of the trial court dated 20 May 1988
    act upon the Petition for Issuance of a Preliminary Writ of Attachment. RTC and and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 13 July 1988 are hereby SET
    CA denied this objection, ruling that the lower court has jurisdiction. The Supreme ASIDE and ANNULLED.
    Court reversed the lower courts, ruling that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
    petition for a writ of attachment. a. A court which has not acquired jurisdiction RATIO:
    over the person of defendant, cannot bind that defendant whether in the main case
    or in any ancillary proceeding such as attachment proceedings. First Issue
    1. There is no question that a writ of preliminary attachment may be
    DOCTRINE: If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the applied for a plaintiff "at the commencement of the action or at any
    person of the defendant in the principal action, it simply has no jurisdiction to time thereafter" in the cases enumerated in Section 1 of Rule 57 of
    issue a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendant or his property. the Revised Rules of Court. But he critical time which must be
    identified is, when the trial court acquires authority under law to act
    coercively against the defendant or his property in a proceeding in
    FACTS: attachment. We believe and so hold that critical time is the time of
    1. Alberto Sievert received by mail a Petition for Issuance of a the vesting of jurisdiction in the court over the person of the
    Preliminary Attachment in Civil Case No. 88-44346 filed with the defendant in the main case.
    RTC Manila. Petitioner had not previously received any summons 2. Attachment is an ancillary remedy. It is not sought for its own sake
    and any copy of a complaint against him for the said Civil Case. but rather to enable the attaching party to realize upon relief sought
    2. On the day set for hearing of the Petition for a Preliminary Writ of and expected to be granted in the main or principal action.
    Attachment, petitioner's counsel went before the trial court and a. A court which has not acquired jurisdiction over the person
    entered a special appearance for the limited purpose of objecting to of defendant, cannot bind that defendant whether in the
    the jurisdiction of the court. main case or in any ancillary proceeding such as
    3. He simultaneously filed a written objection to the jurisdiction of the attachment proceedings.
    trial court to hear or act upon the Petition for Issuance of a b. The service of a petition for preliminary attachment
    Preliminary Writ of Attachment. In this written objection, petitioner without the prior or simultaneous service of summons and
    prayed for denial of that Petition for lack of jurisdiction over the a copy of the complaint in the main case — and that is what
    person of the petitioner (defendant therein) upon the ground that happened in this case — does not of course confer
    since no summons had been served upon him in the main case, no jurisdiction upon the issuing court over the person of the
    jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner had been acquired by defendant.
    the trial court. c. Ordinarily, the prayer in a petition for a writ of preliminary
    4. RTC denied petitioner’s objection, and held that the preliminary attachment is embodied or incorporated in the main
    complaint itself as one of the forms of relief sought in such
    complaint. Thus, valid service of summons and a copy of
    the complaint will in such case vest jurisdiction in the court
    over the defendant both for purposes of the main case and
    for purposes of the ancillary remedy of attachment.
    d. In such case, notice of the main case is at the same time
    notice of the auxiliary proceeding in attachment. Where,
    however, the petition for a writ of preliminary attachment
    is embodied in a discrete pleading, such petition must be
    served either simultaneously with service of summons and
    a copy of the main complaint, or after jurisdiction over the
    defendant has already been acquired by such service of
    summons.
    e. Notice of the separate attachment petition is not notice of
    the main action. Put a little differently, jurisdiction whether
    ratione personae or ratione materiae in an attachment
    proceeding is ancillary to jurisdiction ratione personae or
    ratione materiae in the main action against the defendant.
    f. If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or
    over the person of the defendant in the principal action,
    it simply has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of
    preliminary attachment against the defendant or his
    property.
    3. It is basic that the requirements of the Rules of Court for issuance of
    preliminary attachment must be strictly and faithfully complied with
    in view of the nature of this provisional remedy.
    4. In the case at bar, the want of jurisdiction of the trial court to
    proceed in the main case against the defendant is quite clear. It is
    not disputed that neither service of summons with a copy of the
    complaint nor voluntary appearance of petitioner Sievert was had in
    this case. Yet, the trial court proceeded to hear the petition for
    issuance of the writ. This is reversible error and must be corrected
    on certiorari.

    You might also like