PROVISIONALREMEDIES ATTY.

CERTEZA
CALOv.ROLDAN G.R.No.L252,March30,1946 FACTS Plaintiffspouses,asownersandpossessorsofcertainparcelsoflandinLaguna,filedagainstdefendantsacomplaint,allegingthat thelatter,throughtheuseofforce,stealth,strategyandintimidation,intendorareintendingtoenterandworkorharvestwhatever existingfruitsfoundontheland.Togetherwiththecomplaint,theyprayedfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctiontobe issued ex parte to restrain, enjoin and prohibit defendants from entering, interfering with or harvesting the lands belonging to plaintiffspouses.AnaccompanyingbondintheamountofP200wasalsofiled. Defendantsopposedtheissuanceofthewritofpreliminaryinjunctiononthegroundthattheyaretheownersofthelandsandhave beeninactualpossessionsince1925. Afterthehearingonthepetitionforpreliminaryinjunction,JudgeRillorazadeniedthepetitiononthegroundthatthedefendants wereinactualpossessionofthelands.MRhasyettobedecideduponthewritingofthisdecision. Plaintiffs filed an urgent petition exparte praying that their MR of the order denying their petition for preliminary injunction be grantedand/orfortheappointmentofareceiverofthepropertiesinvolved,onthegroundthattheplaintiffshaveaninterestinthe properties and fruits and that the appointment of a receiver was the most convenient and feasible means of preserving, administering and disposing of the properties in litigation. Judge Roldan, who was then the judge appointed, replacing Rilloraza, grantedthepetitionforappointmentofandappointedareceiverinthecase. ISSUE WhetheritwasproperfortheJudgetograntthepetitionfortheappointmentofareceiverNO RULING Basedonthecomplaintfiled,theplaintiffsactionisoneofordinaryinjunctionforthetheyallegedthattheyaretheownersofthe lands involved and were in actual possession thereof and that the defendants without any legal right, through the use of FISTS, intendorareintendingtoenterandworkorharvestwhateverexistingfruitsmaybefoundthereonandpraysthatthedefendants berestrained,enjoinedandprohibitedfromenteringin,interferingwithorharvestingthelands. The provisional remedies (attachment, preliminary injunction, receivership, delivery of personal property) are remedies to which parties litigant may resort for the preservation or protection of their rights or interest, and for no other purpose, during the pendencyoftheprincipalaction.Ifanaction,byitsnature,doesnotrequiresuchprotectionorpreservation,saidremediescannot beappliedforandgranted.Toeachkindofaction/saproperprovisionalremedyisprovidedforbylaw. Attachment:issuedonlyinthecasesspecificallystatesinsection1,Rule59,inorderthatthedefendantmaynotdisposeof hisattachedpropertyandthussecurethesatisfactionofanyjudgmentthatmayberecoveredbyplaintifffromdefendant. Forthatreason,apropertysubjectoflitigationbetweentheparties,orclaimedbyplaintiffashis,cannotbeattachedupon amotionofthesameplaintiff. Preliminary prohibitory injunction: lies when the relief demanded in the complaint consists in restraining the commission/continuance of the act complained of, either perpetually or for a limited period, and the other conditions required by sec 3 of Rule 60. Purpose is to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the action or the relation betweentheparties,inordertoprotecttherightsofplaintiffrespectingthesubjectoftheactionduringthependencyof thesuit. Receiver:maybeappointedtotakechargeofpersonal/realpropertywhichisthesubjectofanordinarycivilaction,whenit appears that the party applying for the appointment of a receiver has an interest in the property or fund which is the subjectoftheactionorlitigation,andthatsuchpropertyorfundisindangerofbeinglost,removedormateriallyinjured unless a receiver is appointed to guard and preserve it. The property or fund must be in litigation according to the
HIPOLITO2012

allegations of the complaint, and the object of appointing a receiver is to secure and preserve the property or thing in controversypendingthelitigation. Deliveryofpersonalproperty:consistsinthedelivery,byorderofcourt,ofapersonalpropertybythedefendanttothe plaintiff, who shall give a bond to assure its return or payment of damages to the defendant in the plaintiffs action to recoverpossessionofthesamepropertyfails,inordertoprotecttheplaintiffsrightofpossessionoversaidproperty,or preventthedefendantfromdamaging,destroyingordisposingofthesameduringthependencyofthesuit.

PROVISIONALREMEDIES ATTY.CERTEZA

Consideringthese,theprovisionalremedypropertoplaintiffsactionofinjunctionisaPRELIMINARYPROHIBITORYINJUNCTION,if plaintiffstheory,assetforthinthecomplaint,thatheistheownerandinactualpossessionofthelandiscorrect. However,asthelowercourtfoundduringthehearingthatthedefendantswereinpossessionofthelands,thelowercourtactedin accordancewithlawindenyingthepetition,althoughtheirMR,whichwasstillpendingatthetimeofthepetitioninthiscasewas heardinthiscourt,plaintiffsinsistthattheyareinactualpossessionofthelandsandofitsfruits. Judgeactedinexcessofhisjurisdictioninappointingareceiver.TheappointmentofareceiverisNOTproperordoesnotlieinan actionforinjunctionsuchasthiscase.Thepetitionforappointmentofareceiverfiledbyplaintiffsisbasedonthegroundthatitis themostconvenientandfeasiblemeansofpreserving,administeringanddisposingoftheproperties;neitherthelandsnorthepalay harvestedwereinlitigation. SALASv.ADIL G.R.No.L46009,May14,1979 FACTS RespondentsBedroandYufiledanactiontoannulthedeedofsaleofacertainlotagainstSalasspouses,PCIBank,asAdministrator oftheTestateEstateofthedeceasedCharlesHodges,andMagnoasAdministratrixoftheTestateEstateofdeceasedLinnieHodges. SaiddeedwasallegedlyexecutedbytheadministratorsoftheHodgesEstateinfavoroftheSalasspouses.Thiscasewaspredicated on the the averment that the lot, being a subdivision road, is intended for public use and cannot be sold or disposed of by the HodgesEstate. Salas spouses denied the allegations, stating that the lot had been registered in the name of Charles Hodges as their exclusive privatepropertyandwasneversubjectedtoanyservitudeoreasementofrightofwayinfavorofanyperson;andthattheother occupantshadotherwaystoaccessthenationalhighway. RespondentsfiledaMotionforAttachment,allegingthatthecasewasforannulmentofadeedofsaleandrecoveryofdamagesand that the Salas spouses have removed or disposed of their properties or are about to do so with intent to defraud their creditors especiallytherespondents.Correspondingly,theJudgeissuedexparteaWritofAttachmentagainstthepropertiesofSalasspouses uponthefilingofrespondentsabondamountingtoP200K. ISSUE WhetheritwasproperfortheJudgetoissuetheWritofAttachmentNO RULING A preliminary attachment is a rigorous remedy, which exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance, such it should not be abused as to cause unnecessary prejudice. It is therefore, the duty of the court, before issuing the writ, to ensure that all the requisitesofthelawhavebeencompliedwith;otherwise,thejudgeactsinexcessofhisjurisdictionandsotheissuedwritshallbe nullandvoid. Considering the gravity of the allegations, it was incumbent upon the Judge to give notice to petitioners and to allow them to present evidence. Moreover, the respondents were claiming unliquidated damages including moral damagesthe writ of attachmentisNOTavailableinasuitfordamageswheretheamountclaimediscontingentorunliquidated.
HIPOLITO2012

PROVISIONALREMEDIES ATTY.CERTEZA
STA.INESMELALEFORESTPRODUCTSCORP.v.MACARAIGJR. G.R.No.80849,December2,1998|G.R.No.81114,December2,1998 FACTS In1967,theDENRissuedaTimberLicenseAgreementinthenameofSta.Ines,coveringforestareasinAgusandelSur.In1973,the DENRissuedaTLAinthenameofKalilidcoveringforestareasinAgusandelSur.Inthesameyear,theDENRissuedanotherTLAin thenameofAgwoodcoverforestareasinAgusandelSur.ThetimberlicenseareaofKalilidisonthenorthernandnorthwestern boundaryofSta.Ines,whilethatofAgwoodisonitswesternboundary. AteamconductedalocationsurveyoftheboundarylinesofKalilid(Botesurvey).Sta.Ines,asanadjacentconcessionaire,wasnot representedinthatsurvey.BoteranthenorthernboundaryofSta.Inesat16,000meters,endingatapointsome300metersshort ofthemeetingofthecommonboundarylineofSta.InesandAgwoodasestablishedintheDelaCruzsurvey. In1978,KalilidfiledwiththeOfficeoftheDistrictForesteroftheBureauofForestDevelopment,alettercomplaintallegingthatSta. IneshadbeenconductingloggingoperationsinParcelTVofitsconcessionarea.In1979,Agwoodfiledthesamething. Allpartiesagreedtodoarerunoftheircommonboundarylines.BasedonaRelocationSurveyReportbyBayla,boundarieswere established. Twoyearsafter,theDirectorofForestDevelopmentdecidedtheencroachmentcasesagainstSta.InesbyissuinganOrderdeclaring thenewboundarylineestablishedbyBaylaasthecorrectcommonboundarylines.ItmadeadefinitivefindingthatSta.Ineshas encroacheduponthelicenseareasofKalilidandAgwood. Onappeal(allegingthattheBaylasurveyviolatedtheiragreementfixingthedistances),theMinistryofNaturalResourcesdismissed it.Onfurtherappeal,theOfficeofthePresidentthroughE.S.MacaraigJr.dismissedtheappealandaffirmingintototheDecisionof theMinistryofNaturalResources.MRdenied. In1987,KalilidfiledwiththeRTCacomplaintforAttachmentwithDamages,andacorrespondingexparteWritofAttachmentwas issued by Judge Hidalgo commanding the Sheriff to attach personal and real properties belonging to Sta. Ines, as security for the awardofdamagestoKalilid,ifany.KalilidfiledabondofP500K.Acounterbondwasfiled. ISSUE WhetheritwasproperfortheJudgetoissueawritofattachmentYES RULING Pendinglitigation,theplaintiffmayfileprovisionalremedies,likeattachment,toensurethesafetyandpreservationoftheproperty inpossessionoftheadverseparty.Attachmentisajuridicalinstitutionintendedtosecuretheoutcomeofthetrialthesatisfaction of the pecuniary obligation really contracted by a person or believed to have been contracted by him, either by virture of a civil obligation emanating from the contract or law, or by virtue of some crime or misdemeanor that he might have committed. It is enforcedthroughawritwhichistheprocessissuedattheinstitutionorduringtheprocessofanactioncommandingthesheriffor otherproperofficertoattachproperty,rights,creditsoreffectsofdefendanttosatisfythedemandofthesheriff. Purpose:Tosecureacontingentlienondefendantspropertyuntilplaintiffcan,byappropriateproceedings,obtainajudgmentand have such property applied to its satisfaction or to make provision for unsecured debts in cases where the means of satisfaction thereof are liable to be removed beyond the jurisdiction or improperly disposed of or concealed or otherwise placed beyond the reachofcreditors. Attachmentisprimarilyinaidofcreditors.Asusedintherules,however,theterm,"creditors",shouldnotbeconstruedinitsstrict, technical sense. Rather, it should be given a broad construction as to embrace not only a creditor established as such by a contractualrelationallegedinthecomplaintbutalsoallpartieswhoputinsuitdemands,accounts,interestsorcausesofaction,for whichtheymightrecoverinthesuitanydebtordamages.Aplaintiff,inanactionfordamageslikeanyordinarycreditorinanaction torecoveradebt,putsinsuithisclaimandoncetheclaimisestablishedinajudgmentinhisfavor,hebecomesacreditorofthe
HIPOLITO2012

defendanttotheextentofthedamageordebtthusestablished.Aclaimantfordamagesisjustasmuchacreditorthemomenthis demandisestablishedbyjudgmentasanordinarycreditoris,intheeventhiscreditisestablishedinthesuit. In this case, Kalilid may be considered a creditor entitled to attachment of so much of the property of Sta. Ines as necessary to ensurepaymentofthevalueofthetimberwhichitwrongfullyfelled,cutandhauledfromthetimberlicenseareaofKalilid. Itiswellsettledthatthegrantordenialofawritofattachmentrestsuponthesounddescriptionofthecourt.ThisCourtfoundthat onthebasisoftheverifiedallegationoffraud,thedefinitivestatementofdamagesandthebondpostedbyKalilid,thetrialcourt correctlyexerciseddiscretioninissuingthewritofattachment. ADLAWANv.TORRES G.R.No.6595758,July5,1994 FACTS RespondentAboitizandCompanysoughttocollectfrompetitionersasumofmoneyforunpaidloanamortizations,technicaland managerialservicesrenderedandunpaidinstallmentsoftheequipmentprovidedbyAboitiz.Actingonanexparteapplicationfor attachment,theExecutiveJudgeissuedanorderdirectingtheissuanceofthewritofpreliminaryattachmentagainstthepropertyof petitionersuponthefilingbyrespondentAboitizofanattachmentbond. Petitioners,however,movedforabillofparticularsandtosetasidetheexpartewritofattachment.Findingmeritonthemotion, thecourtorderedtheliftingofthewritandconsequentlythedischargeoftheleviedproperty. RespondentAboitizfiledanoticeofdismissalofitscomplaint,whichwasconfirmedbythecourt,emphasizingthatallordersofthe court issued prior to the filing of the notice of dismissal had been rendered functus oficio and all pending incidents moot and academic. Adlawanfiledamotionforimplementationandenforcementoftheorder.However,thiswasdeniedbythecourtonaccountofthe filingbyrespondentAboitizbeforeanothercourtofanactionfordeliveryofpersonalproperty(replevin)andthefilingbyAdlawan beforethesamecourtofanactionfordamagesinconnectionwiththeseizureofhispropertyunderthewritofattachment. In the replevin suit, the court ordered the seizure and delivery of the property. Alleging that while his office was in Cebu City, Adlawan was a resident of Minglanilla and hence, Lapu Lapu City court should not entertain the action for replevin for lack of jurisdiction.Adlawanfiledanomnibusmotionprayingforreconsiderationanddissolutionofthewritofseizure,theretrievalofhis seizedpropertyanddismissalofthecomplaintDENIED.MRalsodenied. rd The3 DivisionoftheSCruledthatsincetheattachmentisanancillaryremedy,thewithdrawalofthecomplaintleftitwithnoleg tostandon.RespondentAboitizfiledMRdeniedwithfinality.SecondMRSCruledthatthepropertiestobereturnedareonly thoseheldbyAboitizbyvirtueofwritofattachmentthathasbeendeclarednonexistent. Again, Aboitiz filed against petitioners 2 complaints for collection of sum of money with prayers for the issuance of writs of attachmentduetomoneyandequipmentloanedbyAboitiztopetitioners.Complaint1:JudgeTorresorderedtheissuanceofawrit ofattachmentuponfilingofP5Mbond.Complaint2:JudgeJacintoorderedissuanceofwritofattachmetuponfilingofP2.5Mbond. Awritwasissuedbysheriffforcomplaint1,butnotforcomplaint2. ISSUE WhetheritwasproperfortheJudgetoordertheissuanceofthewritsofattachmentintheconsolidatedcasesforcollectionofsums ofmoneyNO. RULING TheaffidavitsubmittedbyAboitizinsupportofitsprayerforthewritofattachmentdoesNOTmeettherequirementsofRule57of RoCregardingtheallegationsonimpendingfraudulentremoval,concealmentanddispositionofdefendantsproperty.
HIPOLITO2012

PROVISIONALREMEDIES ATTY.CERTEZA

To justify a preliminary attachment, the removal or disposal must have been made with intent to defraud defendants creditors. Proofoffraudismandatedbyparagraphs(d)and(e)ofSection1,Rule57onthegroundsuponwhichattachmentmayissue.Thus, the factual basis on defendants intent to defraud must be clearly alleged in the affidavit in support of the prayer for the writ of attachmentifnotsospecificallyallegedintheverifiedcomplaint. Itisevidentfromsaidaffidavitthattheprayerforattachmentrestsonthemortgagebypetitionersof11parcelsoflandinCebu, whichencumbrancerespondentAboitizconsideredasfraudulentconcealmentofpropertytoitsprejudice.Wefind,however,that thereisnofactualallegation,whichmayconstituteasavalidbasisforthecontentionthatthemortgagewasinfraudofrespondent Aboitiz.AsthisCourtsaidinJardineManilaFinance,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,171SCRA636(1989),"[T]hegeneralruleisthatthe affidavitisthefoundationofthewrit,andifnonebefiledoronebefiledwhichwhollyfailstosetoutsomefactsrequiredbylawto bestatedtherein,thereisnojurisdictionandtheproceedingsarenullandvoid." Bareallegationthatanencumbranceofapropertyisinfraudofthecreditordoesnotsuffice.Factualbasesforsuchconclusionmust beclearlyaverred. TheexecutionofamortgageinfavorofanothercreditorisnotconceivedbytheRulesasoneofthemeansoffraudulentlydisposing ofone'sproperty.Bymortgagingapieceofproperty,adebtormerelysubjectsittoalienbutownershipthereofisnotpartedwith. Furthermore,theinabilitytopayone'screditorsisnotnecessarilysynonymouswithfraudulentintentnottohonoranobligation. Consequently,whenpetitionersfiledamotionforthereconsiderationoftheorderdirectingtheissuanceofthewritofattachment, respondentJudgeshouldhaveconsidereditasamotionforthedischargeoftheattachmentandshouldhaveconductedahearing orrequiredsubmissionofcounteraffidavitsfromthepetitioners,ifonlytogatherfactsinsupportoftheallegationoffraud(Jopillo, Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,167SCRA247[1988]).ThisiswhatSection13ofRule57mandates. Thisprocedureshouldbefollowedbecause,astheCourthastimeandagainsaid,attachmentisaharsh,extraordinaryandsummary remedyandtherulesgoverningitsissuancemustbeconstruedstrictlyagainsttheapplicant.Verily,awritofattachmentcanonlybe grantedonconcreteandspecificgroundsandnotongeneralavermentsquotingperfunctorilythewordsoftheRules(D.P.LubOil MarketingCenter,Inc.v.Nicolas,191SCRA423[1990]). The judge before whom the application is made exercises full discretion in considering the supporting evidence proffered by the applicant.Oneoverridingconsiderationisthatawritofattachmentissubstantiallyawritofexecutionexceptthatitemanatesatthe beginning,insteadofattheterminationofthesuit. CHEMPHILEXPORT&IMPORTCORPORATIONv.GONZALES G.R.No.11243839,December12,1995|G.R.No.113394,December12,1995 FACTS Dynetics and Garcia filed a complaint for declaratory relief and/or injunction against PISO, BPI, LBP, PCI Bank and RCBC or the consortium with the RTC of Makati, seeking judicial declaration, construction and interpretation of the validity of the surety agreementthatDyneticsandGarciaenteredintowiththeconsortiumandtoperpetuallyenjointhelatterfromclaiming,collecting andenforcinganypurportedobligationswhichDyneticsandGarciamighthaveundertakenintheagreement. Seven months later, Dynetics, Garcia and Matrix Management filed a complaint for declaratory relief and/or injunction against SecurityBank.ThecourtgrantedSBTCsprayerfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryattachment,whereanoticeofgarnishment onthesharesofGarciainChemphilwasservedonChemphil.However,thiswritwasthereafterlifted,andthenreinstated. In the meantime, the court denied the application of Dynetics and Garcia for preliminary injunction and instead granted the consortiumsprayerforaconsolidatedwritofpreliminaryattachment(case8527).ThegarnishmentforthisattachmentwasNOT annotated in Chemphils stock and transfer book. Motion to dismiss was filed by PCI Bankgranted. MR filed by consortium denied.
HIPOLITO2012

PROVISIONALREMEDIES ATTY.CERTEZA

Duringthependencyoftheappeal,acompromiseagreementwasenteredintobetweenGarciaandtheconsortium. In1988,GarciaunderaDeedofSaletransferredtoFerroChemicals(FCI)thedisputedsharesandotherpropertiesforP79M.Itwas agreed that part of the purchase price shall be paid to Security Bank for whatever judgment credits it may be adjudged against Garcia. FCIissuedacheckrefusedbySecurityBankbecauseitwasinsufficienttocoverthedebt. FCIassigned4MsharesinChemphiltoCEIC. Garciafailedtocomplywiththecompromiseagreementconsortiumfiledamotionforexecutiongrantedbythecourt.Garcias propertieswereleviedupononexecutionwerehis1.7MsharesinChemphilpreviouslygarnished. TheconsortiumacquiredthedisputedsharesofstockinthepublicsaleconductedbythesheriffforP85M. CEICfiledamotiontointervenesayingthatitistheownerofthesharedgrantedbythecourt,butlimitedonlytotheincidents coveredbytheorder.ConsortiumopposedtoCEICsmotiontheirattachmentlienoverthesharesmustprevailovertheprivate sale in favor of CEIC considering that the shares were garnished in the consortiums favor. Trial court granted CEICs motion and deniedconsortiums. ISSUE 1. Whetherthedismissalofcase8527resultedinthedischargeofthewritofattachmentissued 2. Whetherthejudgmentbasedoncompromiseagreementhadtheeffectofdischargingtheattachmentsissuedincase8527 3. Whether the attachment of shares of stock, in order to bind third parties, must be recorded in the stock and transfer bookNO. 4. WhetherthewritofattachmentwasproperlyservedYES. RULING 1and2.CEICarguesthatthewritofattachmentisamereauxiliaryremedy,whichuponthedismissalofthecase,diesanatural death. Thus, when the consortium entered into a compromise agreement, which resulted in the termination of the case, the disputed shares were released from garnishment. The Court ruled in the negative. To subscribe to CEICs contention would be to disregardtheconceptandpurposeofthepreliminaryattachment. Awritofpreliminaryattachmentisaprovisionalremedyissueduponorderofthecourtwhereanactionispendingtobe levieduponthepropertyorpropertiesofthedefendanttherein,thesametobeheldthereafterbytheSheriffassecurity forthesatisfactionofwhateverjudgmentmightbesecuredinsaidactionbytheattachingcreditoragainstthedefendant. Attachmentisajuridicalinstitutionwhichhasforitspurposetosecuretheoutcomeofthetrial,thatis,thesatisfactionof thepecuniaryobligationreallycontractedbyapersonorbelievedtohavebeencontractedbyhim,eitherbyvirtueofacivil obligation emanating from contract or from law, or by virtue of some crime or misdemeanor that he might have committed, and the writ issued, granted it, is executed by attaching and safely keeping all the movable property of the defendant,orsomuchthereofmaybesufficienttosatisfytheplaintiff'sdemands Thechiefpurposeoftheremedyofattachmentistosecureacontingentlienondefendant'spropertyuntilplaintiffcan,by appropriateproceedings,obtainajudgmentandhavesuchpropertyappliedtoitssatisfaction,ortomakesomeprovision forunsecureddebtsincaseswherethemeansofsatisfactionthereofareliabletoberemovedbeyondthejurisdiction,or improperlydisposedoforconcealed,orotherwiseplacedbeyondthereachofcreditors. An attachment lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment or until judgment is satisfied,ortheattachmentdischargedorvacatedinthesamemannerprovidedbylaw.
HIPOLITO2012

PROVISIONALREMEDIES ATTY.CERTEZA

Attachment is in the nature of a proceeding in rem. It is against the particular property. The attaching creditor thereby acquires specific lien upon the attached property which ripens into a judgment against the res when the order of sale is made.Suchaproceedingisineffectafindingthatthepropertyattachedisanindebtedthingandavirtualcondemnationof ittopaytheowner'sdebt.Thelawdoesnotprovidethelengthoftimeanattachmentlienshallcontinueaftertherendition ofjudgment,anditmustthereforenecessarilycontinueuntilthedebtispaid,orsaleishadunderexecutionissuedonthe judgmentoruntiljudgmentissatisfied,ortheattachmentdischargedorvacatedinsomemannerprovidedbylaw. Ithasbeenheldthatthelienobtainedbyattachmentstandsuponashighequitablegroundsasamortgagelien: The lien orsecurity obtained byanattachmentevenbefore judgment, is a fixed andpositive security,aspecific lien,and,althoughwhetheritwilleverbemadeavailabletothecreditordependsoncontingencies,itsexistenceis innowaycontingent,conditionedorinchoate.Itisavestedinterest,anactualandsubstantialsecurity,affording specificsecurityforsatisfactionofthedebtputinsuit,whichconstitutesacloudonthelegaltitle,andisasspecific asifcreatedbyvirtueofavoluntaryactofthedebtorandstandsuponashighequitablegroundsasamortgage. Thepartiestothecompromiseagreementshouldnotbedeprivedoftheprotectionprovidedbyanattachmentlienespeciallyinan instancewhereonerenegesonhisobligationsundertheagreement,asinthecaseatbench,whereAntonioGarciafailedtoholdup hisownendofthedeal,sotospeak. Fromtheforegoing,itisclearthattheconsortiumand/oritsassigneeJaimeGonzaleshavethebetterrightoverthedisputedshares. When CEIC purchasedthe disputed sharesfrom AntonioGarciaon 15July1988,it took the shares subjecttothe prior,validand existingattachmentlieninfavorofandobtainedbytheconsortium. 3.Theattachmentlienacquiredbytheconsortiumisvalidandeffective.BoththeRoCandtheCorporationCodedoNOTrequirethe annotation in the corporations stock and transfer books for the attachment of shares of stock to be valid and binding on the corporation and third parties. An attachment does not constitute an absolute conveyance of property but is primarily used as a meanstoseizethedebtorspropertyinordertosecurethedebtorclaimofthecreditorintheeventthatajudgmentisrendered. 4. CEIC asserts that the writ of attachment over the disputed shares of Chemphil is null and void, insisting that the notice of garnishment was not validly served upon the designated officers of the company. However, the Court ruled that the secretarys function is to assist his superior. He is in effect an extension of the latter. As such, one of his duties is to receive the letters and notices for and in behalf of the superior. The notice of garnishment was addressed to and was actually received by Chemphils presidentthroughhissecretarywhoformallyreceivedit.Hence,therewassubstantialcompliancewithSec.7(d),Rule57ofRoC.

PROVISIONALREMEDIES ATTY.CERTEZA

HIPOLITO2012