DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CO. V CA G.R. No.

93262 December 29, 1991 Doctrine: A hearing on a motion or application for preliminary attachment is not generally necessary unless otherwise directed by the Trial Court in its discretion. Emergency Recit: Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (Davao Light) filed a verified complaint containing an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment against Queensland Hotel, etc. and Teodorico Adarna (Queensland). RTC granted this, and the writ of attachment was eventually issued. The summons and a copy of the complaint, the writ of attachment, and the attachment bond were served on Queensland; and soon, the sheriff seized properties belonging to the latter. Queensland filed a motion to discharge the attachment for lack of jurisdiction to issue the same, as at the time the order of attachment was promulgated and the attachment writ issued, the RTC had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the cause and over the persons of the defendants. The RTC denied the motion. Queenland filed for certiorari in the CA, which ruled in its favor. Davao elevated the case to SC, which ruled that a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex parte against a defendant before acquisition of jurisdiction of the latter's person by service of summons. A hearing on a motion or application for preliminary attachment is not generally necessary unless otherwise directed by the Trial Court in its discretion. Facts: Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (Davao Light) filed a verified complaint for recovery of a sum of money and damages against Queensland Hotel, etc. and Teodorico Adarna (Queensland). The complaint contained an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment. - The RTC granted the ex parte application and fixed the attachment bond at P4.6M. Davao Light submitted the attachment bond, so the writ of attachment issued. - The summons and a copy of the complaint, the writ of attachment, and the attachment bond were served on Queensland; and pursuant to

the writ, the sheriff seized properties belonging to the latter. - Queensland filed a motion to discharge the attachment for lack of jurisdiction to issue the same, as at the time the order of attachment was promulgated and the attachment writ issued, the RTC had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the cause and over the persons of the defendants. The RTC denied the motion. - Queensland filed for certiorari in the CA, which ruled in its favor, annulling all the Orders of the RTC. This prompted Davao Light to elevate the case to the SC. Issue: W/N a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex parte against a defendant before acquisition of jurisdiction of the latter's person by service of summons or his voluntary submission to the Court's authority? YES RTC decision reinstated Ratio: (1) A preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy, in virtue of which, a plaintiff or other party may, at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter, have the property of the adverse party taken into the custody of the court as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered. No principle, statutory or jurisprudential, prohibits its issuance by any court before acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. - Toledo v. Burgos: A hearing on a motion or application for preliminary attachment is not generally necessary unless otherwise directed by the Trial Court in its discretion. - Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Relova: Nothing in the Rules of Court makes notice and hearing indispensable and mandatory requisites for the issuance of a writ of attachment. The only pre-requisite is that the Court be satisfied, upon consideration of "the affidavit of the applicant or of some other person who personally knows the facts, (a) that a sufficient cause of action exists, (b) that the case is one of those mentioned in Section 1, (c) that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and (d) that the 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 (of attachment) is granted above all legal counterclaims.

-It is wrong to theorize that after an action or proceeding has been commenced and jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff has been vested in the court, but before the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (either by service of summons or his voluntary submission to the court's authority) , nothing can be validly done by the plaintiff or the court. (2) However, whatever be the acts done by the Court prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant , 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. - Service of all such documents is indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also upon considerations of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the complaint against him, of the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor and thus accord him the opportunity to prevent attachment of his property. - Here, the summons and a copy of the complaint, as well as the order and writ of attachment and the attachment bond were served on the defendant.