UEM MARA Philippines Corporation v. Ng Wee
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint for a sum of money filed by Alejandro Ng Wee against UEM Mara Philippines Corporation (UEM MARA) and several other defendants. Ng Wee alleged that he was enticed by officers of Westmont Bank and Westmont Investment Corporation (Wincorp) to place substantial funds with Wincorp, promising high yields and no risk. These funds were subsequently loaned to Power Merge Corporation, which was beneficially owned by Luis Juan L. Virata. Ng Wee discovered that Power Merge was a new corporation with insufficient capitalization and no track record, and that through a side agreement, Wincorp had waived Power Merge's liability for the loans. Ng Wee contended that this was a fraudulent scheme involving Wincorp, its directors, and Mr. Virata. Procedural History: A writ of preliminary attachment was issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 39, on November 6, 2000, garnishing UEM MARA's proportionate share in the income of the Manila-Cavite Tollway Project. UEM MARA and Mr. Virata's motion to dismiss and to discharge the writ was denied. Their subsequent petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA) was also denied, as was their petition for review to the Supreme Court. After further proceedings and motions regarding the attachment and counter-bonds, the RTC, in an Order dated May 26, 2011, modified the counter-bond amount for Virata's property but lifted and set aside the writ of attachment on UEM MARA's project income. Ng Wee appealed this to the CA, which, in a Decision dated August 29, 2012, and Resolution dated March 27, 2013, reinstated the writ of preliminary attachment against UEM MARA's project income, finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Petition: UEM MARA filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion, in failing to consider UEM MARA's argument that the lifting of the writ was justified without a counter-bond, and in granting certiorari over an error of judgment. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the main case (Civil Case No. 00-99006) had been decided with finality by this Court in a 2017 Decision, which explicitly dismissed the complaint against UEM MARA for lack of merit, holding that UEM MARA could not be held liable. Consequently, the Court held that the preliminary attachment writ had ceased to exist due to the final adjudication of the main case and the absolution of UEM MARA from liability.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the writ of preliminary attachment against UEM MARA's project income, considering the final adjudication of the main case. Whether the writ of preliminary attachment has ceased to exist due to the final adjudication of the main case and the subsequent dismissal of the complaint against UEM MARA, specifically regarding UEM MARA's liability.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The writ of preliminary attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court is DEEMED LIFTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the writ of preliminary attachment: The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional and ancillary remedy, available only during the pendency of the main action and ceases to exist upon the entry of judgment. The main case had already been decided with finality by the Supreme Court. This final adjudication inherently dissolves any ancillary writ issued in connection with the case. On whether the writ of preliminary attachment has ceased to exist due to the final adjudication of the main case and the subsequent dismissal of the complaint against UEM MARA: The Supreme Court's final decision explicitly dismissed the complaint against UEM MARA for lack of merit, meaning UEM MARA was absolved from liability. The Court affirmed its previous finding that UEM MARA could not be held liable for Ng Wee's investment losses because UEM MARA is a distinct entity from Power Merge and Wincorp, and it was not established that UEM MARA was involved in perpetrating fraud against the investors. The essential elements of a cause of action against UEM MARA were lacking. Thus, UEM MARA should not have been impleaded in the case, and the complaint against it was dismissed for lack of merit. This dismissal further solidified the groundlessness of the attachment writ directed at UEM MARA.
Main Doctrine
A writ of preliminary attachment, being an ancillary remedy, ceases to exist upon the final adjudication of the main case, especially when the party against whom the writ was directed is absolved from liability.