Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Pobre
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (petitioner) entered into three Retailer Supply Agreements (RSAs) with Angel Y. Pobre (Angel) for the supply of Shell fuel and lubricants to three gas stations. Angel informed petitioner of his resignation due to health reasons, effective December 16, 2017, and made a final purchase of P4,846,555.84. He requested this amount be set off against receivables. Petitioner reconciled Angel's account, showing an outstanding balance of P2,787,529.33. Concurrently, Gino Nicholas Pobre (Gino), who assumed ownership of the stations, requested the removal of Shell signage. Petitioner demanded Angel pay his outstanding balance and rejected Gino's request, asserting the RSAs were still subsisting. Angel acknowledged the balance but disputed the amount, citing uninstalled equipment, and maintained his resignation terminated the RSAs. Petitioner asserted Angel could not unilaterally terminate the RSAs or assign them to Gino, a retailer for a competitor. Gino denied liability, stating he was not the owner or lessor and that Angel was ready to pay. Procedural History: Unable to resolve the dispute, petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and collection of sum of money with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment against respondents, seeking payment of P4,846,555.84, adherence to the RSAs, damages, and nominal damages, totaling P92,846,555.84. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. Respondents moved for reconsideration and, alternatively, for the discharge of the writ. The RTC partly granted the motion, reducing the covered amount to P89,846,555.84. After the original judge inhibited, the case was re-raffled, and the new presiding judge denied respondents' motion for reconsideration. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA set aside the RTC orders, lifting and dissolving the Writ of Preliminary Attachment, finding that petitioner failed to prove fraud and that respondents had sufficient security. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA's Decision and Resolution, arguing that the CA erred in lifting and dissolving the Writ of Preliminary Attachment. The core issue is whether the CA correctly found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying respondents' motion to discharge the writ. Petitioner contends the CA should have dismissed respondents' petition for certiorari for being filed out of time. The Supreme Court, however, found that respondents' petition was timely filed, considering the distinct remedies available for discharging an attachment. The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the RTC gravely erred in denying the motion to discharge, as petitioner failed to establish the requisites for a writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, specifically the existence of fraud and the lack of sufficient security. The Court also noted the RTC's error in ordering attachment for unliquidated and excessive claims.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in lifting and dissolving the Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued against the respondents, specifically regarding the requisites under Rule 57 and the sufficiency of security. Whether the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals was filed out of time.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of issuing the Writ of Preliminary Attachment: The Court reiterated that a writ of preliminary attachment is a statutory remedy that requires strict construction and should be exercised with great caution as it interferes with property prior to a determination of actual liability. The onus is on the movant to prove entitlement to the writ by strictly adhering to the requisites under Rule 57. The RTC failed to determine the existence of the second and third requisites: that the case is one of those mentioned in Section 1 of Rule 57, and that there is no other sufficient security for the claim. Regarding the second requisite, the Court held that the fraud alleged must be specific and rest on concrete grounds; mere failure to pay a debt or comply with contractual obligations is not the fraud contemplated under Section 1(d), Rule 57. The allegations in the complaint did not demonstrate that Angel employed multifarious means to defraud petitioner, nor did they show specific fraudulent acts by Gino. The Court clarified that it was not making a categorical statement on the presence or absence of fraud in the dealings but confined its conclusion to the failure to meet the particularity required for the issuance of the writ. As to the third requisite, the Court found that petitioner failed to establish that respondents had insufficient security. Petitioner's argument that Angel never posted a security because of their harmonious relations did not logically follow as proof of his inability to post security for the claimed amounts. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the CA that the amount ordered to be attached was excessive, as it included unliquidated and contingent claims, such as the nominal damages for the fourth site, which is the definition of an unliquidated claim. The RTC gravely erred in denying respondents' motion to discharge the writ. On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals: The Court found that while petitioner correctly asserted that respondents' second motion for reconsideration did not toll the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari concerning the denial of their plea to reconsider the issuance of the writ, this did not hold true for the denial of their alternative prayer to discharge the writ. Respondents are free to avail of remedies under Rule 57, and availing one does not bar another. Therefore, the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari concerning the denial of the motion to discharge only began to run upon respondents' receipt of the RTC's Order dated February 14, 2020. Consequently, the petition was filed on time, and the CA did not err in taking cognizance of it. Even if there were a delay, the merits of the case and substantial justice serve as exceptions to the 60-day period.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that the fraud required for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court must be of sufficient specificity and rest on concrete grounds, and mere failure to pay a debt or comply with contractual obligations does not constitute such fraud. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a writ of attachment should not be issued for unliquidated or contingent claims and should generally be confined to the principal claim to avoid excessive attachments.