Cu Unjieng v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves allegations of a fraudulent conspiracy between Guillermo A. Cu Unjieng, Mariano Cu Unjieng, and one Rafael Fernandez. This conspiracy allegedly involved hypothecating and pledging forged securities, such as share certificates and warehouse receipts, with various banking institutions and commercial firms in Manila. The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation claims to have been defrauded of P1,411,312.80 as a result of this scheme, with a significant portion of the funds allegedly paid directly to the Cu Unjieng brothers. 2. Procedural History: The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation filed a civil action against the Cu Unjieng brothers and simultaneously sought a writ of attachment, which was granted by the Court of First Instance of Manila on October 14, 1931. The petitioners (Cu Unjieng brothers) moved to discharge the attachment on October 20, 1931, citing defects in the affidavit. The respondent judge allowed the filing of an amended affidavit and subsequently denied the motion to dissolve the attachment through orders on November 25, 1931, March 4, 1932, and April 11, 1932. The petitioners then initiated this original action for certiorari on October 4, 1932, to nullify the writ of attachment and the subsequent orders. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to declare the writ of attachment and subsequent orders null and void. Their petition is based on two main arguments: (1) that an affidavit supporting a writ of attachment cannot be amended, and (2) that even if amendment were permissible, the original affidavit was fatally defective for failing to state that there was no other sufficient security for the claim and that the amount due was as stated, above all legal set-offs or counterclaims. They contend that these defects render the writ improperly or irregularly issued and that such fatal defects cannot be cured by amendment, citing California jurisprudence adopted by Philippine courts.
Issue(s)
Whether an affidavit for a writ of attachment can be amended. Whether a cause of action arising ex delicto is within the terms of the attachment statutes.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is granted. The writ of attachment is declared null and void and ordered discharged.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of amending an affidavit for attachment: The Court held that while Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows amendments in furtherance of justice, the specific provisions governing attachments, particularly Section 441 in conjunction with California Code sections 556, 557, and 558, indicate that a fatally defective affidavit for attachment cannot be cured by amendment. The California Supreme Court, whose decisions are persuasive due to the adoption of similar provisions, has consistently held in cases like Winters v. Pearson and Tibbet v. Tom Sue that a writ of attachment must be discharged if improperly or irregularly issued, and such defects cannot be remedied by amendment, unless the law explicitly permits it, which was not the case in the Philippines at the time. The Court noted that California had amended its law in 1909 to allow such amendments, but the Philippine Legislature had not. Therefore, the writ of attachment in this case, based on a fatally defective affidavit, should have been discharged. On the issue of whether a cause of action arising ex delicto is within the terms of the attachment statutes: This issue was reserved for discussion in another case, as the Court found sufficient grounds to grant the petition based on the amendability of the attachment affidavit.
Main Doctrine
An affidavit for a writ of attachment, if fatally defective, cannot be cured by amendment, and the writ must be discharged. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding amendments should be liberally construed in furtherance of justice, but specific provisions concerning attachments must be followed.