Central Capiz v. Salas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Timoteo Unson and Clara Lacson de Unson filed an action against Central Capiz for breach of contract, seeking damages amounting to P163,643.88. They applied for a writ of attachment, alleging that the defendant corporation was about to dispose of its property with intent to defraud the plaintiffs. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Capiz granted the writ of attachment, and the sheriff levied upon the property of the defendant company. The attorneys for Central Capiz filed a motion to discharge the attachment, arguing it was improperly or irregularly issued. This motion was denied by the respondent judge. The Petition: Central Capiz filed an original petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the attachment order.
Issue(s)
Whether the allegations in the complaint and the affidavit supporting the application for attachment were sufficient to justify the issuance of the writ. Whether the allegation that "the plaintiffs are informed, and so allege, that the defendant is attempting and intends" to dispose of its property weakens the affidavit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, upholding the order granting the writ of attachment. The Court found that the allegations and affidavit met the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the provisions related to attachment should be liberally construed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the allegations and affidavit for attachment: The Court held that all the requirements for granting an attachment under section 426 of the Code of Civil Procedure were sufficiently met. The affidavit, made by the plaintiff Timoteo Unson, stated that he had knowledge of the facts alleged in the complaint, that there was a sufficient cause of action, that one of the grounds for attachment specified in section 424 existed, that there was no other sufficient security, and that the amount due was as much as the sum for which the attachment was sought. These statements were made in almost precise terms of the statute. Furthermore, the complaint itself alleged a claim for damages due to breach of contract, which constitutes a sufficient cause of action, and specified the ground for attachment under No. 5 of section 412, namely, that the defendant was about to dispose of its property with intent to defraud the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that these facts were readily ascertainable from the complaint, and the generality of the statement in the affidavit was not fatal. On the effect of the allegation "the plaintiffs are informed, and so allege": The Court found that this allegation did not weaken the affidavit. The Court reasoned that the allegation clearly stated the defendant's attempt to dispose of its property with fraudulent purpose, and when the affidavit stated that the affiant had knowledge of the facts alleged in the complaint, this was sufficient. The expression "the plaintiffs are informed" was not considered to weaken the affidavit, which purported to be made upon personal knowledge. The Court also noted that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure should be liberally construed to promote its objects and assist parties in obtaining speedy justice, and that the bond required for attachment serves as a reasonable safeguard against abuse.
Main Doctrine
An affidavit supporting an application for a writ of attachment, even if couched in general terms, is sufficient if the essential facts can be readily ascertained from the complaint itself, and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding attachment should be liberally construed to promote speedy justice.