PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK V.

ALEJANDRO
GR NO. 175587, SEPTEMBER 21, 2007
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Even on the allegation that respondent is a resident temporarily out of the Philippines, petitioner
is still not entitled to a writ of attachment because the trial court could acquire jurisdiction over the
case by substituted service instead of attaching the property of the defendant.

FACTS:

Petitioner filed against respondent a complaint for sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment. Said complaint alleged that respondent, a resident of Hong Kong,
executed in favor of petitioner a promissory note obligating himself to pay P249,828,588.90 plus
interest.

In praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1 paragraphs (e) and
(f) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, petitioner alleged that (1) respondent fraudulently withdrew
his unassigned deposits notwithstanding his verbal promise to PCIB Assistant Vice President
Corazon B. Nepomuceno not to withdraw the same prior to their assignment as security for the
loan; and (2) that respondent is not a resident of the Philippines. The trial court granted the
application and issued the writ ex parte. The bank deposits of respondent with Rizal Commercial
Banking Corporation (RCBC) were garnished. Respondent filed a motion to quash the writ
contending that the withdrawal of his unassigned deposits was not fraudulent as it was approved
by petitioner. He also alleged that petitioner knew that he maintains a permanent residence at
Calle Victoria, Ciudad Regina, Batasan Hills, Quezon City, and an office address in Makati City at
the Law Firm Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & De los Angeles, where he is a partner.
Respondent added that he is the managing partner of the Hong Kong branch of said Law Firm;
that his stay in Hong Kong is only temporary.

The trial court issued an order quashing the writ and holding that the withdrawal of respondents
unassigned deposits was not intended to defraud petitioner. It concluded that petitioner
misrepresented and suppressed the facts regarding respondents residence considering that it
has personal and official knowledge that for purposes of service of summons, respondents
residence and office addresses are located in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, respondent filed a claim for damages in the amount of P25 Million on the attachment
bond. The trial court awarded damages to respondent in the amount of P25 Million without
specifying the basis thereof. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which affirmed
the findings of the trial court. It held that in claiming that respondent was not a resident of the
Philippines, petitioner cannot be said to have been in good faith considering that its knowledge of
respondents Philippine residence and office address goes into the very issue of the trial courts
jurisdiction which would have been defective had respondent not voluntarily appeared before it.

ISSUE:

Whether or not issuance of writ of preliminary attachment is the proper remedy

RULING:

No. Where the defendant is a resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines, attachment of
his/her property in an action in personam, is not always necessary in order for the court to acquire
jurisdiction to hear the case. Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court reads:

Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. When an action is commenced against a
defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service
may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section.
The preceding section referred to in the above provision is Section 15 which provides for
extraterritorial service (a) personal service out of the Philippines, (b) publication coupled with
the sending by registered mail of the copy of the summons and the court order to the last known
address of the defendant; or (c) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.

In Montalban v. Maximo, however, the Court held that substituted service of summons (under the
present Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court) is the normal mode of service of summons that
will confer jurisdiction on the court over the person of residents temporarily out of the Philippines.
Meaning, service of summons may be effected by (a) leaving copies of the summons at the
defendants residence with some person of suitable discretion residing therein, or (b) by leaving
copies at the defendants office or regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof. Hence, the court may acquire jurisdiction over an action in personam by mere
substituted service without need of attaching the property of the defendant.

In the instant case, it must be stressed that the writ was issued by the trial court mainly on the
representation of petitioner that respondent is not a resident of the Philippines. Obviously, the trial
courts issuance of the writ was for the sole purpose of acquiring jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case. Had the allegations in the complaint disclosed that respondent has a residence in
Quezon City and an office in Makati City, the trial court, if only for the purpose of acquiring
jurisdiction, could have served summons by substituted service on the said addresses, instead of
attaching the property of the defendant. The rules on the application of a writ of attachment must
be strictly construed in favor of the defendant. It should be resorted to only when necessary and
as a last remedy.

It is clear from the foregoing that even on the allegation that respondent is a resident temporarily
out of the Philippines, petitioner is still not entitled to a writ of attachment because the trial court
could acquire jurisdiction over the case by substituted service instead of attaching the property of
the defendant. The misrepresentation of petitioner that respondent does not reside in the
Philippines and its omission of his local addresses was thus a deliberate move to ensure that the
application for the writ will be granted.