Adlawan v. Tomol
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Eleazar V. Adlawan, a contractor, obtained financial assistance from Aboitiz and Company, Inc. for government infrastructure projects. When Adlawan failed to make payments, Aboitiz filed a collection case and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment against Adlawan's properties. The writ was issued ex-parte, leading to the seizure of Adlawan's properties in Davao City. 2. Procedural History: The initial collection case (Civil Case No. R-21761) was filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, Branch XI, presided over by Judge Valeriano P. Tomol. Judge Tomol initially granted the writ of attachment but later dissolved it on July 6, 1982, finding it improperly issued. However, he stayed this order for fifteen days upon Aboitiz's motion. Subsequently, Aboitiz withdrew its complaint, and Judge Tomol confirmed the termination of the case, rendering all prior orders functus officio. Adlawan then sought the return of his properties, but Judge Tomol denied this, citing a replevin case (Civil Case No. 619-L) filed by Aboitiz in CFI Cebu, Branch XVI (Lapu-Lapu City), and a damages case filed by Adlawan. In the replevin case, Judge Ceferino E. Dulay ordered the seizure of the properties, which were delivered to Aboitiz. Adlawan's motion to dissolve the replevin writ was denied. 3. The Petition: Adlawan filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the orders of Judge Tomol denying the return of his attached properties and Judge Dulay's denial of his motion to dissolve the replevin writ. Adlawan argues that Judge Tomol abused his discretion by refusing to enforce his own order dissolving the attachment after Aboitiz withdrew its complaint, and that the Lapu-Lapu court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the replevin case when the properties were already under custodia legis of the Cebu court. He contends that the replevin case violated procedural rules and that the properties should have been returned to him upon the dissolution of the attachment and withdrawal of the main complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Tomol committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to implement his own order for the return of attached properties after the writ of attachment was dissolved and the complaint was dismissed. Whether the attached properties were under the custodia legis of the attaching court (Branch XI, CFI-Cebu) and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the replevin court (Branch XVI, CFI-Cebu). Whether the CFI of Cebu, Branch XVI (Lapu-Lapu City), acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in taking cognizance of the replevin case involving properties already in custodia legis of another branch. Whether the CFI of Cebu, Branch XVI, should have dismissed the replevin case due to the custodia legis principle and violation of Administrative Orders concerning venue.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Eleazar V. Adlawan. The Court ordered that the attached properties left in the custody of private respondent Aboitiz and Company, Inc. be returned to petitioner Adlawan, without prejudice to the outcome of the cases filed by both parties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the refusal to implement the order for return of properties: The Court held that the order dated July 6, 1982, lifting the writ of preliminary attachment, was a valid order issued while Judge Tomol had jurisdiction. Although its execution was stayed for fifteen days, the private respondent failed to appeal or question it in the appellate court within that period, rendering the order final and executory. The Court emphasized that execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal if no appeal has been perfected, and its issuance is a ministerial duty of the court. The subsequent dismissal of the complaint by Aboitiz rendered all prior orders, including the attachment, functus officio and moot. Therefore, Judge Tomol's refusal to enforce his own order for the return of properties was an error. On the custodia legis and jurisdiction of the replevin court: The Court reiterated that a writ of preliminary attachment is an ancillary remedy, dependent on the principal action. When the complaint was withdrawn, the attachment ceased to have a legal basis. The properties, having been attached, were in custodia legis of the attaching court (Branch XI, CFI-Cebu) for the purposes of that civil case only. Courts generally have no jurisdiction to order the delivery of property (replevin) if it is already under attachment by another court. Only courts with supervisory or superior jurisdiction can interfere with property in custodia legis. The Lapu-Lapu branch (Branch XVI) acted with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the replevin case involving properties already under the attachment of Branch XI, especially after the attachment was dissolved and the main case was dismissed. On the venue of the replevin case: While the petitioner questioned the venue of the replevin case filed in Lapu-Lapu City, the Court noted that by filing an omnibus motion that included non-jurisdictional grounds for dismissal (besides the venue issue), the petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Lapu-Lapu court. However, this submission did not cure the fundamental defect of the court taking cognizance of a property already considered in custodia legis by another branch, particularly after the main case and attachment were dissolved. On the duty to dismiss the replevin case: The Court found that the Lapu-Lapu branch should have dismissed the replevin case not only due to the custodia legis principle but also because the circumstances indicated dubious procedural maneuvers by the private respondent to retain possession of the properties. The withdrawal of the complaint in the collection case meant the attachment had no basis, and the properties should have been returned to the petitioner. The subsequent replevin action, under these circumstances, was an attempt to circumvent the effects of the dismissal and the dissolution of the attachment.
Main Doctrine
Once a complaint is dismissed, all orders issued prior to the dismissal, including those concerning provisional remedies like attachment, become functus officio and are rendered moot and academic. The attached properties should be returned to the defendant, and any subsequent action concerning them must be initiated anew.