Benitez v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Casa Filipina Development Corporation (Casa Filipina) filed a complaint against petitioner Helena T. Benitez for rescission of contract and damages, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. Casa Filipina alleged that Benitez agreed to purchase/convey land for P1,000,000.00 within four months from receipt of the total amount, which was remitted in two P500,000.00 checks. Casa Filipina claimed Benitez converted the money for personal use, violating a fiduciary relationship, and failed to purchase the land despite demands. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the writ of attachment ex parte. Benitez filed an answer with counterclaim and an urgent motion to discharge the writ, alleging the transaction was a purchase and sale of land, not an agency, and that Casa Filipina failed to pay the balance of P500,000.00 for the P1,500,000.00 agreed price for 10 hectares of land in Dasmarinas, Cavite. The RTC denied the motion to discharge, stating the issue could not be determined without going into the merits and that a counterbond was necessary. Benitez's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) dismissed Benitez's petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition. The Petition: Benitez filed a petition for review on certiorari, questioning the IAC's decision affirming the RTC's orders denying her motion to discharge the writ of attachment.
Issue(s)
Whether a counter-attachment bond is necessary and indispensable under the circumstances before a writ of preliminary attachment may be recalled, quashed, and/or discharged. Whether the propriety of the issuance of the writ may be resolved without going into the merits of the principal action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court and annulled and set aside the ex parte writ of preliminary attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the necessity of a counter-attachment bond: The Court held that a writ of attachment may be discharged pursuant to Section 13, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court without the necessity of filing a cash deposit or counterbond. This provision grants relief from baseless and unjustifiable attachments procured upon false allegations, without requiring such bond. The petitioner's motion to discharge was filed under this provision, alleging improper and irregular issuance due to controverted facts. On resolving the propriety of the writ without going into the merits: The Court found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to discharge the writ without conducting a hearing and requiring the plaintiff to substantiate its allegation of fraud. The RTC's reasoning that the issue could not be determined without adducing evidence and going into the merits was deemed an avoidance of its duty. Having issued the writ ex parte, the court must determine its validity upon challenge. The Court emphasized that attachment is a rigorous remedy that should not be abused and must be corrected if wrongfully issued on false allegations.
Main Doctrine
A writ of preliminary attachment may be discharged under Section 13, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court without the necessity of filing a cash deposit or counterbond if it was improperly or irregularly issued, particularly when the allegations supporting its issuance are controverted and require adducing evidence on the merits of the case.