Cuartero v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Ricardo Cuartero filed a complaint for a sum of money plus damages against respondents Roberto and Felicia Evangelista, seeking to recover P2,171,794.91. The complaint alleged that the Evangelista spouses induced Cuartero to grant a loan by issuing postdated checks for installment payments and interest, implying potential fraud in the transaction. 2. Procedural History: Cuartero filed his complaint on August 20, 1990, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City granted his prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment ex-parte on August 24, 1990. The writ was issued on September 19, 1990, and simultaneously served with the summons and complaint on the Evangelistas on September 20, 1990. The Evangelistas moved to set aside the order and discharge the writ, which the RTC denied on October 4, 1990. The Evangelistas then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially denied a restraining order. However, on June 27, 1991, the CA granted the petition, nullifying the RTC's orders and the writ of attachment. Cuartero's motion for reconsideration was denied on October 22, 1991. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul the CA's decision and resolution. Cuartero argues that the CA erred in holding that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the Evangelista spouses and that the RTC could not validly issue the writ of preliminary attachment. The petition contends that a writ of attachment may be issued ex-parte at the commencement of the action, even before service of summons, provided that the implementation of the writ is accompanied by simultaneous service of summons and other pertinent documents, which occurred in this case. The petition also asserts that the issue of fraud, a ground for attachment, is within the competence of the RTC to resolve in the main action.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondent spouses, considering the simultaneous service of summons and the writ of preliminary attachment. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Regional Trial Court could not validly issue the writ of preliminary attachment as an ancillary remedy, and whether a proper ground existed for its issuance.
Ruling
The Court GRANTS the petition. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and the order and writ of attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against spouses Evangelista are REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the person and the validity of the writ of preliminary attachment: The Court held that a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued ex-parte at the commencement of an action, even before jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired, to secure the satisfaction of a future judgment. Requiring prior notice could allow the defendant to abscond or dispose of property. While the issuance and levy do not require prior jurisdiction, the writ cannot bind until jurisdiction is obtained. Simultaneous service of summons with the writ satisfies this requirement, distinguishing this case from Sievert v. Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, stating that writs may issue ex-parte if requisites are fulfilled, but implementation requires service of summons, complaint, attachment order, and bond. The Court found no due process violation, as the Rules of Court do not require notice and hearing for issuance. On the issue of whether a proper ground existed for the issuance of the writ: The issue of whether a proper ground existed for the issuance of the writ is a question of fact that should be determined in the main case, especially since the alleged fraud in issuing postdated checks was part of the petitioner's cause of action.
Main Doctrine
A writ of preliminary attachment may be issued ex-parte at the commencement of an action, even before jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through service of summons or voluntary appearance, provided that the writ is implemented simultaneously with the service of summons and other pertinent documents.