Ng Wee v. Tankiansee
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alejandro Ng Wee made money placements totaling P210,595,991.62 with Westmont Investment Corporation (Wincorp). He later discovered that Wincorp allegedly transferred his placements without his knowledge and consent to the loan account of Power Merge, a corporation with a small subscribed capital, through an agreement that virtually freed Power Merge of liability. This was allegedly done through false representations by Wincorp officers and directors, enticing petitioner to roll over his placements so Wincorp could loan the same to Virata/Power Merge. Petitioner alleged that Virata used Power Merge as a conduit and connived with Wincorp's officers and directors to fraudulently obtain the placements for his benefit without intent to pay. Procedural History: On October 19, 2000, petitioner filed a civil case for damages against, among others, respondent Manuel Tankiansee, a Vice-Chairman and Director of Wincorp. On October 26, 2000, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendants' properties based on petitioner's affidavit and allegations. Respondent moved for the discharge of the attachment, arguing it was improperly issued and the bond was insufficient. The RTC denied the motion. Respondent's co-defendants appealed via certiorari to the CA and subsequently to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 162928), which affirmed the denial of their motions. Respondent later filed another Motion to Discharge Attachment, raising new grounds, which the RTC also denied. Respondent filed a certiorari petition before the CA, which reversed the RTC's orders and lifted the writ of preliminary attachment concerning respondent's properties. The CA denied reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner assails the CA's decision, arguing that the CA should not have given due course to respondent's certiorari petition as it raised errors of judgment, and that the CA erred in lifting the writ of preliminary attachment as the grounds raised related to the merits of the case, which cannot be a basis for discharge.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the petition for certiorari filed by respondent regarding the writ of preliminary attachment. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious legal error in lifting the writ of preliminary attachment based on grounds that relate to the merits of the main case, considering the requirements for the issuance of the writ. Whether the grounds alleged by respondent in his petition before the CA were sufficient to warrant the lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment, and the effect of previous rulings on other parties.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The September 14, 2005 Decision and the January 6, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90130 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the certiorari petition and the lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment: The Court held that the CA did not err in giving due course to the certiorari petition. While generally, errors of judgment are not subject to certiorari, a writ of preliminary attachment, being a harsh and rigorous remedy, is strictly construed. If it is wrongfully issued on the basis of false or insufficient allegations, it should be corrected. The CA correctly found that the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it issued the writ of preliminary attachment against respondent's properties because the petitioner failed to satisfy the legal obligation to show specific acts constitutive of the alleged fraud committed by the respondent. The affidavit supporting the application for attachment was bereft of any factual statement that respondent committed fraud. It merely narrated the alleged fraudulent transaction between Wincorp and Virata/Power Merge and stated that respondent, as an officer and director, connived with others. However, no specific act or deed was detailed to support this allegation of fraud or connivance. The general averment was insufficient to support the issuance of the writ. On the grounds for discharge of attachment and relation to the merits of the case: The Court clarified that while the merits of the main action are not triable in a motion to discharge an attachment, this principle does not apply when the applicant has not fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of the writ. In this case, the propriety of the issuance of the writ against respondent's properties could be determined by simply reading the complaint and the affidavit. The petitioner failed to provide the necessary factual circumstances of the alleged fraud, which cannot be inferred from mere non-payment or failure to comply with an obligation. Fraudulent intent must be demonstrated, and the affidavit did not show that respondent had a preconceived plan or intention not to pay at the time of contracting the obligation, nor did it detail how respondent committed the alleged fraud. Therefore, the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the writ against respondent's properties. On the effect of previous rulings and sufficiency of grounds for lifting the attachment: The Court reiterated that its ruling in G.R. No. 162928, which affirmed the writ of attachment against Virata and UEM-MARA, does not affect respondent herein because he was not a party to that case. Furthermore, respondent's situation is different as the affidavit against him contained only a general allegation of fraud, unlike the detailed fraudulent scheme described against Virata and/or Power Merge. The Court emphasized that its ruling pertains solely to the writ of preliminary attachment against respondent's properties and does not affect the other parties or the trial court's resolution on the merits of the civil case.
Main Doctrine
A writ of attachment based on fraud requires specific factual allegations detailing how the fraud was committed and how the debtor intended to defraud the creditor, not mere general averments or inferences from the debtor's position.