Miailhe v. De Lencquesaing
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves co-owned real properties administered by petitioner William Alain Miailhe. A partition action was filed due to respondent Elaine Miailhe de Lencquesaing's opposition to an out-of-court partition. Within this partition case, respondent Elaine sought the delivery of P203,167.36, allegedly a cash balance in her favor as of December 31, 1982, which petitioner opposed. Separately, respondent Elaine filed a criminal complaint for estafa against petitioner, alleging misappropriation of rental income, and subsequently returned to Paris. This criminal complaint led to a news report in Bulletin Today. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner William Alain Miailhe subsequently filed a civil complaint for damages against respondent Elaine Miailhe de Lencquesaing, seeking P2,000,000.00 plus attorney's fees, alleging that the estafa complaint was filed solely to embarrass him and besmirch his reputation, and that respondent caused the publication of a libelous news item. Petitioner sought a writ of preliminary attachment against respondent's properties, citing her non-residence. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXIII, granted the writ. Respondent moved to lift the attachment, arguing non-compliance with procedural rules and that the claim was for unliquidated damages. The motion was denied. Respondent then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which declared the writ of preliminary attachment null and void. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: This case is an appeal by certiorari filed by petitioner William Alain Miailhe, through his counsel, against the Decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The petition argues that the IAC erred in its interpretation of Section 1, paragraph (f) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Specifically, petitioner contends that the IAC incorrectly applied this rule to exclude claims for unliquidated damages arising from a crime or tort when the defendant is a non-resident. The core issue before the Supreme Court is whether the IAC correctly construed the rule to require liquidated damages for attachment to issue against a non-resident defendant.
Issue(s)
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in construing Section 1(f), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court to be applicable only in cases where the plaintiff's claim is for liquidated damages. Whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary attachment.
Ruling
The petition is meritless. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, declaring the writ of preliminary attachment null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Section 1(f), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court: The Court agreed with the Intermediate Appellate Court's interpretation that Section 1(f) of Rule 57, which allows attachment against a party residing out of the Philippines, is applicable only when the claim for damages is liquidated. While it is true that this ground is independent of others, it is imperative that the amount sought be liquidated. The IAC correctly held that the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the writ of attachment on a claim based on an action for damages arising from delict or quasi-delict where the amount is uncertain and has not been reduced to judgment, solely because the defendant is a non-resident. Because of the uncertainty of the amount of the plaintiff's claim, it cannot be said that said claim is over and above all legal counterclaims that the defendant may have against the plaintiff, which is an indispensable requirement for the issuance of a writ of attachment as stated in Section 3 of Rule 57 or alleged in the verified complaint. Therefore, the attachment issued in this case was null and void. On the RTC's alleged grave abuse of discretion: The RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the writ of preliminary attachment despite the claim being for unliquidated damages. The purpose of a writ of attachment is to secure the satisfaction of a judgment that may be recovered. If the damages are unliquidated, their amount is uncertain and cannot be readily determined, making it impossible to ascertain if the claim is over and above any potential counterclaims. The IAC's finding that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the writ under these circumstances is therefore correct.
Main Doctrine
A writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1(f) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, which allows attachment against a party residing out of the Philippines, is applicable only when the claim for damages is liquidated. The amount sought must be certain and not subject to uncertainty or dispute, and it must be established that the claim is over and above any legal counterclaims.