CIVIL PROCEDURE_jlhd

Provisional Remedies RULE 57

Cuartero vs CA (Evangelista)
212 SCRA 260 Gutierrez, Jr.; August 5, 1992

time (!ic! t!e !earing (ill ta6e could e enoug! o ena le defendant to a scond or dispose of !is propert% efore a (rit of attac!ment issues. Aence, t!e (rit of preliminar% attac!ment can e applied for and granted at t!e commencement of t!e action or at an% time t!ereafter. 2. Citing anot!er case, 0a&ao Big!t &s CA, CR ?o 93262, ?o&em er 1991, t!e Court furt!er said9 :Dafter an action is properl% commenced E % filing of t!e complaint and t!e pa%ment of all re4uisite doc6et and ot!er fees E t!e plaintiff ma% appl% and o tain a (rit of preliminar% attac!ment upon t!e fulfillment of t!e pertinent re4uisites laid do(n % la(, and t!at !e ma% do so at an% time, eit!er efore or after ser&ice of summons on t!e defendant.< and :DFt is incorrect to t!eori$e t!at after an action or proceeding !as een commenced and 5urisdiction o&er t!e person of t!e plaintiff !as een &ested in t!e court, ut efore ac4uisition of 5urisdiction o&er t!e person of t!e defendant *eit!er % ser&ice of summons or !is &oluntar% su mission to t!e Court/s aut!orit%,, not!ing can e &alidl% done % t!e plaintiff or % t!e Court.< 3. Ft must e understood t!at t!e grant of t!e pro&isional remed% of attac!ment practicall% in&ol&es t!ree stages9 1. t!e court issues t!e order granting t!e application ; 2. t!e (rit of attac!ment issues pursuant to t!e order granting t!e (rit; and 3. t!e (rit is implemented. )or t!e initial t(o stages, it is not necessar% t!at 5urisdiction o&er t!e person of t!e defendant s!ould first e o tained. Ao(e&er, once t!e implantation commences, it is re4uired t!at t!e court must !a&e ac4uired 5urisdiction o&er t!e defendant for (it!out suc! 5urisdiction, t!e court !as no po(er and aut!orit% to act in an% manner against defendant. +. '-plaining t!e Sie&ert case, t!e court said t!at t!e (rit of attac!ment issued e-.parte (as struc6 do(n ecause (!en it (as eing implemented, no 5urisdiction o&er t!e person of t!e defendant !ad as %et een o tained. "!e lo(er court t!en !ad failed to ser&e summons to t!e defendant. 5. Citing 0a&ao again, t!e court said9 :--- (rits of attac!ment ma% properl% issue e-.parte pro&ided t!at t!e Court is satisfied t!at t!e rele&ant re4uisites t!erefore !a&e een fulfilled % t!e applicant, alt!oug! it ma% e in its discretion, re4uire prior !earing on t!e application (it! notice to t!e defendant, ut le&% on t!e propert% pursuant to t!e (rit t!us issued ma% not e &alidl% effected unless preceded, or contemporaneousl% accompanied % t!e ser&ice on t!e defendant of f summons, a cop% of t!e complaint *and of t!e appointment of a guardian ad litem, if an%,, t!e application for attac!ment *if not incorporated in ut su mitted separatel% from t!e complaint,, t!e order of attac!ment, and t!e plaintiff/s attac!ment ond.< PETITIO IS !"A TED.

FACTS: 1.

2. 3.

+. 5.

6.

On August 20, 1990 Ricardo Cuartero filed a complaint efore t!e R"C of #ue$on Cit% against pri&ate respondents '&angelista spouses for a sum of mone% plus damages (it! a pra%er for t!e issuance of a (rit of preliminar% attac!ment on August 20, 1990. )our *+, da%s later, t!e lo(er court issued an order granting e-. parte t!e petitioner/s pra%er for t!e issuance of a (rit of preliminar% attac!ment. Said (rit toget!er (it! t!e summons for t!e spouses (ere prepared on Septem er 19, 1990 and on t!e follo(ing da% (ere ser&ed upon t!e respondents at t!eir residence. At t!e same da% of ser&ice, t!e 0eput% S!eriff le&ied attac!ed, and pulled out t!e properties of t!e pri&ate respondents not e-empt from e-ecution to satisf% t!e petitioner/s principal claim in t!e amount of 12,121,29+.91. Spouses '&angelista filed a motion to set aside t!e order dated August 2+, 1990 and disc!arge t!e (rit for !a&ing een irregularl% and improperl% issued. "!e same (as denied % t!e lo(er court. 1ri&ate respondents, t!en, filed a special ci&il action for certiorari (it! t!e Court of Appeals 4uestioning t!e orders of t!e lo(er court dated August 2+, 1990 and Octo er +, 1990 (it! a pra%er for a restraining order or (rit of preliminar% in5unction to en5oin t!e 5udge from ta6ing furt!er proceedings. "!e CA resol&ed not to grant t!e pra%er for restraining order or (rit of preliminar% in5unction, t!ere eing no clear s!o(ing t!at t!e spouses '&angelista (ere entitled t!ereto. 7ut, t!e CA granted t!e petition for certiorari ased on t!e its finding t!at t!e trial court did not ac4uire an% 5urisdiction o&er t!e person of t!e respondents. Citing Sie&ert &s CA *168 SCRA 692,, t!e CA stated9 :;alid ser&ice of summons and a cop% of t!e complaint &est 5urisdiction in t!e court o&er t!e defendant ot! for t!e purpose of t!e main case and for purposes of t!e ancillar% remed% of attac!ment and a court (!ic! !as not ac4uired 5urisdiction o&er t!e person of defendant, cannot ind t!e defendant (!et!er in t!e main action or in an% ancillar% proceeding suc! as attac!ment proceedings.< =R % petitioner Cuartero !a&ing een denied % t!e CA; !ence t!e appeal to t!e SC.

ISSUE: >O? t!e issuance of t!e (rit of preliminar% attac!ment against pri&ate respondents/ properties (as &alid. HELD: YES. 1. @nder Rule 52 Section 3 of t!e Rules of Court, t!e onl% re4uisites for t!e issuance of t!e (rit are t!e affida&it and ond of t!e applicant. Citing 7) Aomes &s CA, 190 SCRA 262 *1990, *(!ic! cited =indanao Sa&ings &s CA, 122 SCRA +80 *1989,, t!e SC !eld t!at notice to t!e ad&erse part% or !earing of t!e application is not re4uired inasmuc! as t!e