Cu Unjieng v. National City Bank
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves allegations by the National City Bank of New York against Guillermo A. Cu Unjieng and Mariano Cu Unjieng. The bank claims the petitioners, through a conspiracy and intent to defraud, fabricated a significant number of warehouse receipts and corporate share certificates. These forged documents were allegedly used to fraudulently obtain loans and cash advances from the bank. 2. Procedural History: The National City Bank of New York initiated a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the petitioners for a sum of money based on the alleged fraudulent activities. Concurrently with the filing of the complaint, a writ of attachment was issued against the petitioners' properties. A motion to discharge this attachment was subsequently denied by the trial court, leading to the present proceedings. 3. The Petition: The petitioners brought an original petition for certiorari to this Court, seeking to overturn the denial of their motion to discharge the writ of attachment. Their primary contention is that the cause of action is ex delicto (arising from a tort or crime) and therefore not within the scope of Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, when read with Section 424, authorizes the issuance of a writ of attachment. They argue that the attachment is only permissible for actions arising from contracts, express or implied, and that the trial court erred in allowing an amendment to the affidavit for attachment.
Issue(s)
Whether the cause of action, being ex delicto, is within the provisions of Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing a writ of attachment. Whether an affidavit for attachment, which is not defective, can be amended to include new grounds.
Ruling
The Court denied the petition and affirmed the issuance of the writ of attachment. Costs were against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the cause of action, being ex delicto, is within the provisions of Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing a writ of attachment: The Court held that the writ of attachment is authorized under Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents contended that the writ was properly issued under the fourth paragraph of Section 412, and that the limiting clause in paragraph 1, requiring the action to arise "upon contract, express or implied," applies only to that specific paragraph and not to the entire section. The Court reasoned that if the statute were read to limit all paragraphs to causes of action arising upon contract, express or implied, then paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 would be rendered of little value, as quasi-contracts could be inferred in many of the cases mentioned therein. The Court found that the legislative intent was not to limit the section to contractual causes of action. As the complaint and affidavit for attachment clearly showed that the action was brought on an allegation of fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation, the attachment was authorized under Section 412. On the issue of whether an affidavit for attachment, which is not defective, can be amended to include new grounds: The Court found no objection to permitting the amendment of an affidavit of attachment that is not defective, even if a new and additional ground of attachment is alleged. The Court noted that while a defective affidavit for attachment could not be amended, this principle did not preclude the amendment of a non-defective affidavit. The Court cited legal authorities supporting the amendment of affidavits of attachment.
Main Doctrine
An affidavit for attachment that is not defective may be amended, even if a new and additional ground of attachment is alleged. The writ of attachment is authorized under Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the action is brought on an allegation of guilt of fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation for which redress is sought.