Jopillo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondent Raymond Lim filed a complaint for collection of approximately P100,000.00 against petitioner Porfirio JopiLLO, Jr., alleging fraud in contracting the obligation and the disposal of scrap materials to defraud the respondent. Lim sought a writ of preliminary attachment. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court granted the writ of attachment ex-parte. Petitioner moved to discharge the writ, presenting evidence of payment through delivered scrap materials. The trial court denied this motion, suggesting a counterbond. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, the Intermediate Appellate Court denied due course to petitioner's petition for certiorari, vacating its earlier restraining order. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing it erred in ruling that the certiorari petition lacked a jurisdictional issue and that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner contends the attachment was improperly issued, citing evidence of payment and case law suggesting discharge when allegations are proven false. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with the Court finding that any error in the trial court's judgment was an error of law, not correctable by certiorari, and that petitioner failed to establish grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court of Appeals committed an error of law in ruling that the petition for certiorari filed before it by the petitioner did not present any jurisdictional issue. Whether the respondent Court of Appeals committed an error of law in holding that respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Whether the respondent Court of Appeals committed an error of law for having erroneously applied inappropriate authorities and jurisprudence in resolving the petition for certiorari. Whether a motion to discharge a writ of attachment should be granted upon presentation of evidence by the party whose property has been attached to show that the attachment is improper or irregular.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the issues raised by the petitioner are errors of judgment, not of jurisdiction, and thus not correctible by certiorari. The determination of whether a writ of attachment was improperly or irregularly issued rests on the sound discretion of the lower court, and such determination may not be disturbed on appeal unless grave abuse of discretion is shown. In this case, the genuineness of receipts and the nature of the agreement were factual issues requiring trial on the merits, not a motion to discharge.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Court of Appeals committed an error of law in ruling that the petition for certiorari did not present any jurisdictional issue: The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's finding that the petition did not present any jurisdictional issue. Generally, when a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person, its decisions on pertinent questions are within its jurisdiction, and errors, however irregular or erroneous, cannot be corrected by certiorari. The appellate court correctly stated that the respondent judge acted within the law, and any errors in appreciating the evidence did not affect jurisdiction but merely the exercise thereof. Therefore, there was no capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. On the issue of whether the respondent Court of Appeals committed an error of law in holding that respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction: The Court agreed with the appellate court that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court noted that resolving the issue of whether petitioner's evidence proved the falsity of private respondent's allegations would require going into the merits of the case, which is not proper in a motion to discharge an attachment. The merits of the action are not triable on such a motion, as doing so would allow an applicant to force a trial on the merits prematurely. Furthermore, since the principal action was not ready for trial, the respondent court could not resolve the issue on the merits. On the issue of whether the respondent Court of Appeals committed an error of law for having erroneously applied inappropriate authorities and jurisprudence: The Supreme Court found no error in the appellate court's application of jurisprudence. The appellate court correctly cited cases like Napa v. Weissenhagen and Galang v. Endencia to support its conclusion that errors in judgment, not jurisdiction, are not subject to certiorari. The appellate court's reasoning that resolving the motion to discharge would require delving into the merits of the case, which is not permissible at that stage, is consistent with established legal principles regarding preliminary attachments. On the issue of whether a motion to discharge a writ of attachment should be granted upon presentation of evidence by the party whose property has been attached to show that the attachment is improper or irregular: The Court reiterated that Section 13 of Rule 57 allows for the discharge of an attachment if it appears to have been improperly or irregularly issued. This can be established by evidence presented by the party whose property is attached. If the movant establishes that the facts stated in the plaintiff's affidavit are false or untrue, the writ may be considered improperly or irregularly issued. However, the determination of the existence of such grounds rests in the sound discretion of the lower court. In this case, the genuineness of the receipts and the nature of the agreement were factual issues that required a trial on the merits, and the trial court was not persuaded by the petitioner's evidence. Therefore, it was within the trial court's discretion to maintain the writ and offer the option of posting a counterbond.
Main Doctrine
A motion to discharge a writ of attachment on the ground that it was improperly or irregularly issued may be established by evidence presented at the hearing. However, if the determination of the falsity of the allegations in the affidavit for attachment requires a trial on the merits, the writ should not be discharged at this stage, and the defendant may instead post a counterbond.