Acuña v. Yatco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emiliano Acuña filed a complaint against Batac Producers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (Batac Procoma, Inc.) and others for recovery of P300,000.00 for services rendered, P31,000.00 for cash advances, and P25,000.00 for attorney's fees. Acuña prayed for and was granted a writ of preliminary attachment on the properties of Batac Procoma, Inc. The sheriff garnished goods, effects, money, shares, and debts owing to Batac Procoma, Inc. from the Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation (PTFCRCo). Procedural History: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and discharge the attachment. On September 10, 1962, the court dismissed the complaint and discharged the writ of preliminary attachment. Acuña appealed this order to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-20333). Subsequently, the defendants filed a motion for execution pending appeal, but withdrew it upon learning that the sheriff had already implemented the September 10 order. On November 24, 1962, the respondent court issued an order directing the PTFCRCo to deliver the attached properties, moneys, and checks to the sheriff, who was then ordered to deliver them to the defendants. Acuña filed the instant petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction seeking to nullify the November 24, 1962 order. The Petition: Acuña sought to restrain the respondent court, sheriff, PTFCRCo, and Batac Procoma, Inc. from implementing the November 24, 1962 order, arguing that the respondent court lost jurisdiction after the record on appeal was approved. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction, later dissolved upon the posting of a counterbond by the private respondents. Fifty-four farmer-stockholders of Batac Procoma, Inc. intervened, claiming ownership of the attached properties.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing the order dated November 24, 1962. Whether the respondent court retained jurisdiction to order the release of attached properties after the approval of the record on appeal.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The order dated November 24, 1962, directing the release of the attached properties, is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the order of November 24, 1962: The Supreme Court held that the authority of a court to dissolve a writ of preliminary attachment is well-established. The dissolution of the writ in this case was based on the court's finding of a lack of a cause of action. The fact that this Court later set aside the order of dismissal on appeal does not mean the dissolution was without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court noted that its decision on appeal explicitly stated that the disposition was without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to ask for another writ of attachment, implying the original dissolution was within the court's jurisdiction. On the issue of the court retaining jurisdiction: The Court clarified that the order of November 24, 1962, was not a new or separate order but was merely a part, a continuation, and an implementation of the prior order of September 10, 1962, which discharged the writ of preliminary attachment. The order of November 24 was essentially a ministerial act intended to carry out the pre-existing order of September 10. It is a settled rule that trial courts have jurisdiction to issue such implementing orders. Therefore, as the September 10 order was issued within the respondent court's jurisdiction, the subsequent order of November 24, being merely a ministerial implementation thereof, was also within its jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A trial court retains jurisdiction to issue orders that are ministerial in nature, such as implementing a prior order discharging a writ of attachment, even after a record on appeal has been approved and forwarded to the Supreme Court.