Pcib Vs Alejandro

G.R. No.
175587 September 21, 2007

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,
vs.
JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO, Respondent.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner filed against respondent Alejandro a complaint for sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment. Said complaint alleged that respondent, a resident of Hong Kong, executed in favor of petitioner a
promissory note obligating himself to pay P249,828,588.90 plus interest.
In view of the fluctuations in the foreign exchange rates which resulted in the insufficiency of the deposits assigned by respondent as
security for the loan, petitioner requested the latter to put up additional security for the loan.
In praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1 paragraphs (e)and (f) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court,
petitioner alleged that (1) respondent fraudulently withdrew his unassigned deposits notwithstanding his verbal promise to PCIB
Assistant Vice-president Corazon B. Nepomuceno not to withdraw the same prior to their assignment as security for the loan; and
(2) that respondent is not a resident of the Philippines.
The trial court granted the application and issued the writ ex parte. Subsequently, respondent filed a motion to quash he
writ contending that the withdrawal of his unassigned deposits was not fraudulent as it was approved by petitioner. He also alleged
that petitioner knew that he maintains a permanent residence and an office address here in thePhilippines. In both addresses,
petitioner regularly communicated with him through its representatives. The trial court issued an order quashing the writ. With the
denialof petitioner’smotion for reconsideration, it elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the case.
Issue: Whether the issuance of the writ of attachment was proper.
Held: No. In the instant case, it must be stressed that the writ was issued by the trial court mainly on the representation of
petitioner that respondent is not a resident of the Philippines.
In actions in personam against residents temporarily out of the Philippines, the court need not always attach the
defendant’s property in order to have authority to try the case. Where the plaintiff seeks to attach the defendant’s property and to
resort to the concomitant service of summons by publication, the same must be with prior leave, precisely because, if the sole
purpose of the attachment is for the court to acquire jurisdiction, the latter must determine whether from the allegations in the
complaint, substituted service (to persons of suitable discretion at the defendant’s residence or to a competent person in charge of
his office or regular place of business) will suffice, or whether there is a need to attach the property of the defendant and resort to
service of summons by publication in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case and to comply with the requirements
of due process.
Obviously, the trial court’s issuance of the writ was for the sole purpose of acquiring jurisdiction to hear and decide the
case. Had the allegations in the complaint disclosed that respondent has a residence in Quezon City and an office in Makati City, the
trial court, if only for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction, could have served summons by substituted service on the said addresses,
instead of attaching the property of the defendant. The rules on the application of a writ of attachment must be strictly construed
in favor of the defendant. For attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and summary in nature; it is a rigorous remedy which exposes the
debtor to humiliation and annoyance. It should be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy.
It is clear from the foregoing that even on the allegation that respondent is a resident temporarily out of the Philippines,
petitioner is still not entitled to a writ of attachment because the trial court could acquire jurisdiction over the case by substituted
service instead of attaching the property of the defendant.
The misrepresentation of petitioner that respondent does not reside in the Philippines and its omission of his local
addresses was thus a deliberate move to ensure that the application for the writ will be granted.

Pcib Vs Alejandro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pcib Vs Alejandro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pcib Vs Alejandro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

175587 September 21, 2007

Issue: Whether the issuance of the writ of attachment was proper.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.