Onate vs. Abrogar [G.R. No. 107303, 107491] Case Digest

Onate vs. Abrogar

G.R. No. 107303, 107491

 

Facts:

Respondent Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Sun Life, for brevity) filed a complaint for a sum of money with a prayer for the immediate issuance of a writ of attachment against petitioners, and Noel L. Diño. Respondent Judge issued an order granting the issuance of a writ of attachment.

January 30, 1992, petitioners and their co-defendants filed a memorandum in support of the motion to discharge attachment. Also on that same day, Sun Life filed another motion for examination of bank accounts, with the Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI) — which, incidentally, petitioners claim not to be owned by them — and the records of Philippine National Bank (PNB) with regard to checks payable to Brunner. Sun Life asked the court to order both banks to comply with the notice of garnishment.

On February 6, 1992, respondent Judge issued an order (1) denying petitioners' and the co-defendants' motion in not granting Sun Life's motion to examine the BPI account, and others.

 

Issue:

Whether or not respondent Judge had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in allowing the examination of the bank records though no notice was given to Petitioners’.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Petitioners initially argue that respondent Judge erred in granting Sun Life's prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment on the ground that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over them. This argument is clearly unavailing since it is well-settled that a writ of preliminary attachment may be validly applied for and granted even before the defendant is summoned or is heard from. The rationale behind this rule was stated by the Court in this wise:

A preliminary attachment may be defined, paraphrasing the Rules of Court, as the provisional remedy in virtue of which a plaintiff or other proper party may, at the commencement of the action or any time thereafter, have the property of the adverse party taken into the custody of the court as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered. It is a remedy which is purely statutory in respect of which the law requires a strict construction of the provisions granting it. Withal no principle, statutory or jurisprudential, prohibits its issuance by any court before acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.