Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (Davao Light) filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money and damages against Queensland Hotel, etc. and Teodorico Adarna, including an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the application and issued the writ. Subsequently, summons, complaint, writ of attachment, and attachment bond were served on the defendants, and their properties were seized. Procedural History: The defendants moved to discharge the attachment, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction at the time the order and writ of attachment were issued because summons had not yet been served. The RTC denied the motion. The defendants elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a special civil action for certiorari. The CA nullified the RTC's orders and the writ of attachment, holding that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be acquired before a writ of attachment can be validly issued. The Petition: Davao Light seeks reversal of the CA's decision, questioning whether a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex parte before jurisdiction over the defendant's person is acquired.
Issue(s)
Whether a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued ex parte against a defendant before acquisition of jurisdiction over the latter's person by service of summons or his voluntary submission to the Court's authority. Whether the levy on property pursuant to a writ of preliminary attachment issued ex parte may be validly effected without prior or contemporaneous service of summons and other pertinent documents on the defendant.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the order and writ of attachment issued by the RTC are reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The Court ruled that a writ of preliminary attachment may be validly issued ex parte before jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired. The Court clarified that the commencement of an action by filing a complaint vests jurisdiction over the subject matter and the plaintiff, and that certain acts, including the application for and issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, can be validly performed by the court during the interval between the filing of the complaint and the service of summons. The Court emphasized that the provisional remedies of preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction, receivership, or replevin may be applied for and granted even before the defendant is summoned or heard. This is supported by Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the grant of attachment "at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter." The Court further noted that requiring notice and hearing for the issuance of an attachment would defeat its purpose, as it could allow the defendant to abscond or dispose of property before the writ issues. The Court cited previous rulings in Toledo v. Burgos and Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Relova to support the proposition that notice and hearing are not mandatory requisites for the issuance of a writ of attachment. On the second issue: While a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued ex parte, the levy on property pursuant to such a writ cannot be validly effected unless preceded or contemporaneously accompanied by service on the defendant of summons, a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment, the order of attachment, and the plaintiff's attachment bond. The Court explained that these services are indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but also to apprise the defendant of the complaint and the attachment, thereby affording an opportunity to prevent attachment by posting a counterbond or to seek dissolution of the attachment. The Court distinguished the present case from Sievert v. Court of Appeals and BAC Manufacturing and Sales Corporation v. Court of Appeals, where writs of attachment were struck down due to the failure to serve summons and other pertinent documents before or at the time of the levy.
Main Doctrine
A writ of preliminary attachment may be validly issued ex parte before acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, provided the statutory requisites are met. However, the levy on property pursuant to such writ cannot be validly effected unless preceded or accompanied by service of summons and other pertinent documents on the defendant.