4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

Petition denied, resolutions affirmed.

Note.—The doctrine of estoppel applies only to

questions of fact and not of law. The public policy
considerations behind forum shopping are superior to that
of a party's claim of estoppel. (Abenes vs. Bank of the
Philippine Islands, 482 SCRA 421 [2006])
——o0o——

G.R. No. 166759. November 25, 2009.*

SOFIA TORRES, FRUCTOSA TORRES, HEIRS OF

MARIO TORRES and SOLAR RESOURCES, INC.,
petitioners, vs. NICANOR SATSATIN, EMILINDA
AUSTRIA SATSATIN, NIKKI NORMEL SATSATIN and
NIKKI NORLIN SATSATIN, respondents.

Remedial Law; Attachment; Definition of a Writ of

Preliminary Attachment.—A writ of preliminary attachment is
defined as a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court
where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or
properties of the defendant therein, the same to be held thereafter
by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever
judgment that might be secured in the said action by the
attaching creditor against the defendant.
Same; Same; Surety Bond; In accepting a surety bond, it is
necessary that all the requisites for its approval are met otherwise
the bond should be rejected.—In the case at bar, the CA correctly
found that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in
approving the bond posted by petitioners despite the fact that not
all the requisites for its approval were complied with. In accepting
a surety bond, it is necessary that all the requisites for its
approval are met; otherwise, the bond should be rejected.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

454

Same; Same; In provisional remedies, particularly that of

preliminary attachment, the distinction between the issuance and
the implementation of the writ of attachment is of utmost
importance to the validity of the writ.—In provisional remedies,
particularly that of preliminary attachment, the distinction
between the issuance and the implementation of the writ of
attachment is of utmost importance to the validity of the writ.
The distinction is indispensably necessary to determine when
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired in
order to validly implement the writ of attachment upon his
person.
Same; Same; Three stages involved in the grant of the
provisional remedy of attachment;  For the initial two stages, it is
not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be
first obtained.—In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 260
(1992), this Court held that the grant of the provisional remedy of
attachment involves three stages: first, the court issues the order
granting the application; second, the writ of attachment issues
pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is
implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained.
However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the
court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for
without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to
act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from
the Court will not bind the defendant.
Same; Same; The preliminary writ of attachment must be
served after or simultaneous   with the service of summons on the
defendant whether by personal service, substituted service or by
publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case;
Subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive
  acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does
not allow for retroactivity of a belated service.—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 trial court cannot
enforce such a coercive process on respondents without first
obtaining jurisdiction over their person. The preliminary writ of
attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service
of summons on the defendant whether by personal ser-

455

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

vice, substituted service or by publication as warranted by the

circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of summons
does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her
person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a
belated service.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  David, Tamayo & Cui-David Law Offices for
petitioners.
  Teresita R. Paglinawan for respondents.

PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
Decision1 dated November 23, 2004 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 83595, and its Resolution2 dated
January 18, 2005, denying petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration.
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
The siblings Sofia Torres (Sofia), Fructosa Torres
(Fructosa), and Mario Torres (Mario) each own adjacent
20,000 square meters track of land situated at Barrio
Lankaan, Dasmariñas, Cavite, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 251267,3 251266,4 and
251265,5 respectively.
Sometime in 1997, Nicanor Satsatin (Nicanor) asked
petitioners’ mother, Agripina Aledia, if she wanted to sell
their lands. After consultation with her daughters,
daughter-in-law, and grandchildren, Agripina agreed to
sell the proper-

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member

of this Court), with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner (now deceased)
and Magdangal M. De Leon, concurring; Rollo, pp. 41-59.
2 Rollo, p. 39.
3 CA Rollo, pp. 54-55.
4 Id., at pp. 56-57.
5 Id., at pp. 58-59.

456

ties. Petitioners, thus, authorized Nicanor, through a

Special Power of Attorney, to negotiate for the sale of the
properties.6
Sometime in 1999, Nicanor offered to sell the properties
to Solar Resources, Inc. (Solar). Solar allegedly agreed to
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

purchase the three parcels of land, together with the

10,000-square-meter property owned by a certain Rustica
Aledia, for P35,000,000.00. Petitioners alleged that Nicanor
was supposed to remit to them the total amount of
P28,000,000.00 or P9,333,333.00 each to Sofia, Fructosa,
and the heirs of Mario.
Petitioners claimed that Solar has already paid the
entire purchase price of P35,000,000.00 to Nicanor in
Thirty-Two (32) post-dated checks which the latter
encashed/deposited on their respective due dates.
Petitioners added that they also learned that during the
period from January 2000 to April 2002, Nicanor allegedly
acquired a house and lot at Vista Grande BF Resort
Village, Las Piñas City and a car, which
he registered in the names of his unemployed children,
Nikki Normel Satsatin and Nikki Norlin Satsatin.
However, notwithstanding the receipt of the entire
payment for the subject property, Nicanor only remitted
the total amount of P9,000,000.00, leaving an unremitted
balance of P19,000,000.00. Despite repeated verbal and
written demands, Nicanor failed to remit to them the
balance of P19,000,000.00.
Consequently, on October 25, 2002, petitioners filed
before the regional trial court (RTC) a Complaint7 for sum
of money and damages, against Nicanor, Ermilinda
Satsatin, Nikki Normel Satsatin, and Nikki Norlin
Satsatin. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 2694-02,
and raffled to RTC, Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite.
On October 30, 2002, petitioners filed an Ex Parte
Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Attachment,8 alleging
among other things: that respondents are about to depart
the Philip-

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 60-65.

7 Records, pp. 1-14.
8 CA Rollo, pp. 79-83.

457

pines; that they have properties, real and personal in

Metro Manila and in the nearby provinces; that the amount
due them is P19,000,000.00 above all other claims; that
there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to
be enforced; and that they are willing to post a bond fixed
by the court to answer for all costs which may be adjudged
to the respondents and all damages which respondents may

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

sustain by reason of the attachment prayed for, if it shall

be finally adjudged that petitioners are not entitled
thereto.
On October 30, 2002, the trial court issued an Order9
directing the petitioners to post a bond in the amount of
P7,000,000.00 before the court issues the writ of
attachment, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding the present

complaint and motion sufficient in form and substance, this Court
hereby directs the herein plaintiffs to post a bond, pursuant to
Section 3, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in the
amount of Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00), before the Writ of
Attachment issues.”10

On November 15, 2002, petitioners filed a Motion for

Deputation of Sheriff,11 informing the court that they have
already filed an attachment bond. They also prayed that a
sheriff be deputized to serve the writ of attachment that
would be issued by the court.
In the Order12 dated November 15, 2002, the RTC
granted the above motion and deputized the sheriff,
together with police security assistance, to serve the writ of
attachment.
Thereafter, the RTC issued a Writ of Attachment13
dated November 15, 2002, directing the sheriff to attach
the estate,

_______________

9 Id., at pp. 110-112.

10 Id., at p. 112.
11 Id., at p. 127.
12 Id., at p. 128.
13 Id., at pp. 129-130.

458

real or personal, of the respondents, the decretal portion of

which reads:

“WE, THEREFORE, command you to attach the estate, real or

personal, not exempt from execution, of the said defendants, in
your province, to the value of said demands, and that you safely
keep the same according to the said Rule, unless the defendants
give security to pay such judgment as may be recovered on the
said action, in the manner provided by the said Rule, provided
that your legal fees and all necessary expenses are fully paid.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

You shall return this writ with your proceedings indorsed

hereon within twenty (20) days from the date of receipt hereof.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of this Court, this 15th
day of November, 2002, at Imus for Dasmariñas, Cavite,
Philippines.”14

On November 19, 2002, a copy of the writ of attachment

was served upon the respondents. On the same date, the
sheriff levied the real and personal properties of the
respondent, including household appliances, cars, and a
parcel of land located at Las Piñas, Manila.15
On November 21, 2002, summons, together with a copy
of the complaint, was served upon the respondents.16
On November 29, 2002, respondents filed their
Answer.17
On the same day respondents filed their answer, they
also filed a Motion to Discharge Writ of Attachment18
anchored on the following grounds: the bond was issued
before the issuance of the writ of attachment; the writ of
attachment was issued before the summons was received
by the respondents; the sheriff did not serve copies of the
application for attachment, order of attachment, plaintiffs’
affidavit, and attach-

_______________

14 Id., at p. 130.
15 Id., at pp. 154-156.
16 Id., at pp. 131-132.
17 Id., at pp. 133-145.
18 Id., at pp. 146-153.

459

ment bond, to the respondents; the sheriff did not submit a

sheriff’s return in violation of the Rules; and the grounds
cited for the issuance of the writ are baseless and devoid of
merit. In the alternative, respondents offered to post a
counter-bond for the lifting of the writ of attachment.19
On March 11, 2003, after the parties filed their
respective pleadings, the RTC issued an Order20 denying
the motion, but at the same time, directing the respondents
to file a counter-bond, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, after the pertinent

pleadings of the parties have been taken into account, the herein
defendants are hereby directed to file a counter-bond executed to
the attaching party, in the amount of Seven Million Pesos
(P7,000,000.00), to secure the payment of any judgment that the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

attaching party may recover in the action, with notice on the

attaching party, whereas, the Motion to Discharge Writ of
Attachment is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.”21

Thereafter, respondents filed a motion for

reconsideration and/or motion for clarification of the above
order. On April 3, 2003, the RTC issued another Order22
which reads:

“In view of the Urgent Motion For Reconsideration And/Or

Motion For Clarification of the Order of this Court dated March
11, 2003, denying their Motion to Discharge Writ of Attachment
filed by the defendants through counsel Atty. Franco L. Loyola,
the Motion to Discharge Writ of Attachment is denied until after
the defendants have posted the counter-bond in the amount of
Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00).
The defendants, once again, is directed to file their counter-
bond of Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00), if it so desires, in
order to discharge the Writ of Attachment.

_______________

19 Id., at pp. 146-149.

20 Id., at pp. 169-170.
21 Id., at p. 170.
22 Id., at p. 171.

460

       SO ORDERED.”

    On December 15, 2003, respondents filed an Urgent

Motion to Lift/Set Aside Order Dated March [11], 2003,23
which the RTC denied in an Order24 of even date, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendants’ Urgent

Motion to Lift/Set Aside Order Dated March 23, 2003 (With
Manifestation to Dissolve Writ of Attachment) is hereby DENIED
for lack of Merit.
SO ORDERED.”

Respondents filed an Urgent Motion for

25 26
Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Order dated
March 3, 2004.
Aggrieved, respondents filed before the CA a Petition for
Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition with Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order27 under Rule

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.

83595, anchored on the following grounds:

“(1) public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in failing to notice
that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the person and
subject matter of the complaint when the subject Writ of
Attachment was issued;
(2) public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in granting the
issuance of the Writ of Attachment despite non-compliance with
the formal requisites for the issuance of the bond and the Writ of
Attachment.”28

_______________

23 Id., at pp. 171-178.

24 Id., at p. 39.
25 Id., at pp. 184-189.
26 Id., at pp. 36-38.
27 Id., at pp. 2-35.
28 Rollo, p. 52.

461

Respondents argued that the subject writ was improper

and irregular having been issued and enforced without the
lower court acquiring jurisdiction over the persons of the
respondents. They maintained that the writ of attachment
was implemented without serving upon them the summons
together with the complaint. They also argued that the
bond issued in favor of the petitioners was defective,
because the bonding company failed to obtain the proper
clearance that it can transact business with the RTC of
Dasmariñas, Cavite. They added that the various
clearances which were issued in favor of the bonding
company were applicable only in the courts of the cities of
Pasay, Pasig, Manila, and Makati, but not in the RTC,
Imus, Cavite.29
On November 23, 2003, the CA rendered the assailed
Decision in favor of the respondents, finding grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction
on the part of the RTC in issuing the Orders dated
December 15, 2003 and March 3, 2004. The decretal
portion of the Decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly, the assailed Orders are hereby nullified and set
aside. The levy on the properties of the petitioners pursuant to
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

the Writ of Attachment issued by the lower court is hereby

LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.”30

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,31 but it

was denied in the Resolution32 dated January 18, 2005.
Hence, this petition assigning the following errors:

_______________

29 Id., at p. 53.
30 Id., at p. 58.
31 Id., at pp. 60-69.
32 Id., at pp. 38-39.

462

I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
ORDERING THE LIFTING OF THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13, RULE 57 OF THE REVISED
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF
OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN GRANTING THE WRIT
OF ATTACHMENT DESPITE THE BOND BEING
INSUFFICIENT AND HAVING BEEN IMPROPERLY ISSUED.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
DISMISSING THE PETITION BY REASON OF ESTOPPEL,
LACHES AND PRESCRIPTION AND IN HOLDING THAT THE
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT WAS IMPROPERLY AND
IRREGULARLY ENFORCED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 5,
RULE 57 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT.
IV.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL WILL NOT
LIE AGAINST RESPONDENTS.

Petitioners maintain that in the case at bar, as in the

case of FCY Construction Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,33
the only way the subject writ of attachment can be
dissolved is by a counter-bond. They claim that the
respondents are not allowed to file a motion to dissolve the
attachment under Section 13, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.
Otherwise, the hearing on the motion for the dissolution of
the writ would be tantamount to a trial on the merits,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

considering that the writ of preliminary attachment was

issued upon a ground which is, at the same time, the
applicant’s cause of action.

_______________

33 G.R. No. 123358, February 1, 2000, 324 SCRA 270.

463

Petitioners insist that the determination of the existence

of grounds to discharge a writ of attachment rests in the
sound discretion of the lower court. They argue that the
Certification34 issued by the Office of the Administrator
and the Certifications35 issued by the clerks of court of the
RTCs of Dasmariñas and Imus, Cavite, would show that
the bonds offered by Western Guaranty Corporation, the
bonding company which issued the bond, may be accepted
by the RTCs of Dasmariñas and Imus, Cavite, and that the
said bonding company has no pending liability with the
government.
Petitioners contend that respondents are barred by
estoppel, laches, and prescription from questioning the
orders of the RTC issuing the writ of attachment. They also
maintain that the issue whether there was impropriety or
irregularity in the issuance of the orders is moot and
academic, considering that the attachment bond questioned
by the respondent had already expired on November 14,
2003 and petitioners have renewed the attachment bond
covering the period from November 14, 2003 to November
14, 2004, and further renewed to cover the period of
November 14, 2004 to November 14, 2005.
The petition is bereft of merit.
A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a
provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where an
action is pending to be levied upon the property or
properties of the defendant therein, the same to be held
thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of
whatever judgment that might be secured in the said
action by the attaching creditor against the defendant.36
In the case at bar, the CA correctly found that there was
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess
of

_______________

34 CA Rollo, p. 354.

35 Id., at pp. 356-365.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

36 Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102448, August 5, 1992, 212

SCRA 260.

464

jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in approving the

bond posted by petitioners despite the fact that not all the
requisites for its approval were complied with. In accepting
a surety bond, it is necessary that all the requisites for its
approval are met; otherwise, the bond should be rejected.37
Every bond should be accompanied by a clearance from
the Supreme Court showing that the company concerned is
qualified to transact business which is valid only for thirty
(30) days from the date of its issuance.38 However, it is
apparent that the Certification39 issued by the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) at the time the bond was
issued would clearly show that the bonds offered by
Western Guaranty Corporation may be accepted only in the
RTCs of the cities of Makati, Pasay, and Pasig. Therefore,
the surety bond issued by the bonding company should not
have been accepted by the RTC of Dasmariñas, Branch 90,
since the certification secured by the bonding company
from the OCA at the time of the issuance of the bond
certified that it may only be accepted in the above-
mentioned cities. Thus, the trial court acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of
jurisdiction when it issued the writ of attachment founded
on the said bond.
Moreover, in provisional remedies, particularly that of
preliminary attachment, the distinction between the
issuance and the implementation of the writ of attachment
is of utmost importance to the validity of the writ. The
distinction is indispensably necessary to determine when
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be
acquired in order to validly implement the writ of
attachment upon his person.

_______________

37 Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Confiscated Cash, Surety

and Property Bonds at RTC, Tarlac City, Brs. 63, 64 & 65, A.M. No. 04-7-
358-RTC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 21, 28.
38 Id.
39 CA Rollo, p. 119.

465

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

This Court has long put to rest the issue of when

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be
acquired in cases where a party resorts to provisional
remedies. A party to a suit may, at any time after filing the
complaint, avail of the provisional remedies under the
Rules of Court. Specifically, Rule 57 on preliminary
attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy “at the
commencement of the action or at any time before entry of
judgment.”40 This phrase refers to the date of the filing of
the complaint, which is the moment that marks “the
commencement of the action.” The reference plainly is to a
time before summons is served on the defendant, or even
before summons issues.41
In Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,42
this Court clarified the actual time when jurisdiction
should be had:

“It goes without saying that whatever be the acts done by the
Court prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of
defendant x x x issuance of summons, order of attachment and
writ of attachment x x x these do not and cannot bind and
affect the defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his
person is eventually obtained by the court, either by service
on him of summons or other coercive process or his voluntary
submission to the court’s authority. Hence, when the sheriff or
other proper officer commences implementation of the writ of
attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant not only
a copy of the applicant’s affidavit and attachment bond, and of the
order of attachment, as explicitly required by Section 5 of Rule 57,
but also the summons addressed to said defendant as well as a
copy of the complaint x x x.” (Emphasis supplied.)

In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals,43 this Court held that

the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves
three

_______________

40 Rules of Court, Rule 57, Sec. 1.

41 Mangila v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 870, 880; 387 SCRA 162, 171
(2002).
42 G.R. No. 93262, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 343, 355-356.
43 Supra note 36.

466

stages: first, the court issues the order granting the

application; second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant
to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary

that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first
obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ
commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over
the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has
no power and authority to act in any manner against the
defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind
the defendant.44
Thus, it is indispensable not only for the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also upon
consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the
complaint against him and the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor that
prior or contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of
attachment, service of summons, together with a copy of
the complaint, the application for attachment, the
applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the order must be
served upon him.
In the instant case, assuming arguendo that the trial
court validly issued the writ of attachment on November
15, 2002, which was implemented on November 19, 2002, it
is to be noted that the summons, together with a copy of
the complaint, was served only on November 21, 2002.
At the time the trial court issued the writ of attachment
on November 15, 2002, it can validly to do so since the
motion for its issuance can be filed “at the commencement
of the action or at any time before entry of judgment.”
However, at the time the writ was implemented, the trial
court has not acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the
respondent since no summons was yet served upon them.
The proper officer should have previously or
simultaneously with the implementation of the writ of
attachment, served a copy of the summons upon the
respondents in order for the trial court to have

_______________

44 Id., at p. 266.

467

acquired jurisdiction upon them and for the writ to have

binding effect. Consequently, even if the writ of attachment
was validly issued, it was improperly or irregularly
enforced and, therefore, cannot bind and affect the
respondents.
Moreover, although there is truth in the petitioners’
contention that an attachment may not be dissolved by a

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

showing of its irregular or improper issuance if it is upon a

ground which is at the same time the applicant’s cause of
action in the main case, since an anomalous situation
would result if the issues of the main case would be
ventilated and resolved in a mere hearing of a motion.
However, the same is not applicable in the case bar. It is
clear from the respondents’ pleadings that the grounds on
which they base the lifting of the writ of attachment are
the irregularities in its issuance and in the service of the
writ; not petitioners’ cause of action.
Further, petitioners’ contention that respondents are
barred by estoppel, laches, and prescription from
questioning the orders of the RTC issuing the writ of
attachment and that the issue has become moot and
academic by the renewal of the attachment bond covering
after its expiration, is devoid of merit. As correctly held by
the CA:

“There are two ways of discharging the attachment. First, to

file a counter-bond in accordance with Section 12 of Rule 57.
Second[,] [t]o quash the attachment on the ground that it was
irregularly or improvidently issued, as provided for in Section 13
of the same rule. Whether the attachment was discharged by
either of the two ways indicated in the law, the attachment debtor
cannot be deemed to have waived any defect in the issuance of the
attachment writ by simply availing himself of one way of
discharging the attachment writ, instead of the other. The filing
of a counter-bond is merely a speedier way of discharging the
attachment writ instead of the other way.”45

Moreover, again assuming arguendo that the writ of

attachment was validly issued, although the trial court
later

_______________

45 Rollo, pp. 57-58.

468

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 trial court cannot
enforce such a coercive process on respondents without first
obtaining jurisdiction over their person. The preliminary
writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous
with the service of summons on the defendant whether by
personal service, substituted service or by publication as
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
4/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

warranted by the circumstances of the case. The

subsequent service of summons does not confer a
retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person
because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated
service.46
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated November 23, 2004 and January 18, 2005,
respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 83595 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr. and

Nachura, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—The issuance of a writ of preliminary

attachment is conditioned on the filing of a bond unless the
applicant is the State, in which case the filing of the
attachment bond is excused. (Republic vs. Garcia, 527
SCRA 495 [2007])
——o0o—— 

_______________

46 Supra note 41, at 883.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171cc09259d8de54094003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15