Manacop v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. filed a complaint for a sum of money against Manacop Construction and its president, Florante F. Manacop, for failure to pay sub-contract costs. The complaint included a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The original complaint was later amended to substitute Florante F. Manacop as the defendant, doing business under the name F.F. Manacop Construction Co., Inc. 2. Procedural History: A writ of preliminary attachment was issued against a parcel of land owned by Florante F. Manacop. Manacop filed an omnibus motion questioning the writ's issuance due to the absence of an affidavit, its issuance prior to his submission as a party-defendant, and the exemption of his family home from attachment. The court of origin denied this motion. Manacop then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. A motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Florante F. Manacop seeks review of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of his petition for certiorari. He argues that the writ of attachment improperly attached his family home, which he claims is exempt. He also contends that the writ should not have been issued before he was formally made a party-defendant and that the amendment of the complaint extinguished the attachment. The petition raises issues regarding the sufficiency of the affidavit for attachment, the timing of its issuance relative to defendant's joinder, the effect of amending the complaint on the attachment, and the exemption of his family home under the Family Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the challenge posed by petitioner against the denial of his omnibus motion. Whether a writ of preliminary attachment can be issued without a separate affidavit, considering the verified complaint. Whether a writ of attachment can be issued prior to the defendant's submission as a party-defendant. Whether the petitioner's family home is exempt from attachment. Whether the amendment of the complaint extinguished the writ of preliminary attachment.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the challenge posed by petitioner against the denial of his omnibus motion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the overall dismissal of the petition: The Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision, which correctly applied existing jurisprudence and legal provisions to the facts of the case. The petitioner's arguments were found to be without merit, particularly concerning the procedural aspects governed by the omnibus motion rule and the substantive issue of family home exemption. On the propriety of issuing the writ of attachment without a separate affidavit: The Court reiterated the ruling that a verified statement incorporated in the complaint, without a separate affidavit, is sufficient and valid to obtain a writ of attachment. In this case, both the original and amended complaints were verified, constituting substantial compliance with the legal requirements. On the issuance of the writ prior to the defendant's submission as a party-defendant: The Court clarified that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. An action commences upon the filing of the complaint, at which point the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter and the plaintiff. Provisional remedies like attachment may be validly applied for and granted even before the defendant is summoned or has appeared in court, as the Rules allow such application "at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter." On the exemption of the family home: The Court held that the family home is not exempt from attachment for obligations incurred prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. While Article 153 of the Family Code deems a family home constituted upon occupation, Article 162 provides that the provisions of the Chapter on family homes apply to existing family residences prospectively. Since the petitioner's debt was incurred in 1987, it preceded the Family Code's effectivity, making his property subject to attachment. On the effect of the amended complaint on the writ of attachment: The Court ruled that the petitioner's argument that the amendment of the complaint extinguished the writ of attachment was not properly raised in his omnibus motion. Under the omnibus motion rule, all objections available at the time must be included in a single motion; otherwise, they are deemed waived. Since this specific objection was not raised in the omnibus motion, it could no longer be pressed at a later stage.
Main Doctrine
A writ of preliminary attachment may be issued even before jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired, and the amendment of a complaint does not necessarily extinguish an ancillary writ of attachment if the objections thereto were not raised in the omnibus motion.