Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949
LOPE SARREAL, petitioner,
vs.
SOTERO RODAS and FELIPE NATIVIDAD ET AL., respondents.
Claro M. Recto for petitioner.
Gibbs, Gibbs, Chuidian & Quasha for respondents.
BENGZON, J.:
The case. — The principal purpose of this petition for certiorari is to annulthe orders of the orders of the respondent judges dated April 15 and June 12, 1948 cancelling the attachment of certain properties in Manila.
Facts. — On March 24, 1947, Lope Sarreal filed in the Manila Court of First Instance an action to recover more than one million pesos from two corporation; Material Distributors Inc., Wichita, Kansas, and MaterialDistributors (Phil.) Inc. We shall herein refer to the first as WichitaDistributors and to the second as Philippine Distributors.
Upon his request, Judge Felipe Natividad authorized, on the next day,(March 25), the issuance of a preliminary attachment of properties of the defendant corporations after Sarreal had posted a bond of P50,000.Whereupon the sheriff of Manila took possession of certain heavy equipment and other goods situated at 179 Inverness, Santa Ana, Manila, valued at half a million pesos.
On March 26, 1947, Lope Sarreal and the Philippine Distributors signed anagreement whereby the seizure would be lifted provided the latter put up a bond in the amount of P100,000 protecting the plaintiff, who incidentallyreserved the right, for good reasons to ask either the reinstatement of theattachment or the increase of the amount of the bond, while the PhilippineDistributors reserved the privilege subsequently to seek the lifting of theattachment. In view of the agreement, on March 27, 1947, the court decreedthe dissolution of the attachment upon presentation of the bond. The impoundedproperties were consequently released.
On April 10, 1947, the Philippine Distributors filed its answer to Sarreal's complaint and among other things it denied any and all connections with the Wichita Distributors.
Having allegedly received information that the Wichita Distributors would be dissolved in the United States, and being afraid that any judgment he mightobtain against said entity would not be enforceable unless its propertieswere kept in the Philippines, Sarreal submitted in December 1947, a "motionfor amendatory order" praying that the order of March 27, 1947, dissolvingthe attachment be "amended and clarified" so that the discharge therein authorized shall affect only the properties of the Philippine Distributors — the attachment to remain in force against the Wichita Distributors. The court on Dec. 27, 1947, denied the motion, saying that its order was clear andunconditional vacating the only attachment issued in the case.
Probably, as Sarreal alleges, Judge Natividad said during the discussion ofthe preceding motion that his remedy was to secure another attachment of theproperties of the Wichita Distributors. So on April 8, 1948, when he couldprocure the requisite bond, Sarreal prepared and presented to Judge Sotero Rodas a new petition for attachment of the properties of said corporationinforming him that Judge Natividad (then on vacation) had previouslyindicated his willingness to permit such levy. Judge Rodas, on April 9, 1948issued the writ as prayed for. The sheriff then took possession of properties, practically all of which had been seized (and later released) under theprevious attachment of March 25, 1947. Wherefore the Philippine Distributors, through Attorney A. J. Gibbs immediately filed a motion to dissolve thissecond attachment stating, among other reasons, that the properties newlyattached were the same properties that had been released upon the strength of the one-hundred-thousand-peso bond said corporation had filed, and that,in effect, this new levy sets aside the previous order dissolving a similarattachment. Judge Rodas, after hearing the parties, cancelled his own writof attachment by an order dated April 15, 1948. A motion for reconsiderationwas denied by Judge Natividad on June 12, 1948. Thereupon Sarreal instituted this special civil action.
Discussion. — Sarreal charges the respondents with abuse of discretion contending that the attachment was in pursuance of verbal assurance or opinion of Judge Natividad. However, it does not appear that His Honor had advised a new attachment of the same properties released by the order ofMarch 27, 1947. Judge Natividad evidently believe Sarreal could attachsuch properties of the Wichita Distributors as could legally be attached.Anyway Judge Rodas was not bound by another colleague's advice that had nottaken the form of a written final order.
Sarreal also claims the respondents erred in releasing the attached properties of Wichita Distributors at the request of another entity, the Philippine Distributors. But the Philippine Distributors asserts dominion over those goods. Anyway, irrespective of ownership, the Philippine Distributors was practically awarded possesion of properties when it filedthe bond of one hundred thousand pesos for their release from attachment,and was entitled to protection. Furthermore having formally agreed forconsideration (the bond) to the return of the properties to the Philippine Distributors, Sarreal had no justification subsequently to forget his wordby causing a new attachment without at the same time returning the consideration (i.e. cancelling the bond) and/or securing the consent of theother party to the agreement.
The argument of the petitioner that the proper procedure to be followed by the Philippine Distributors was not the petition for the revocation of the order of attachment but to formulate a third party claimed under Rule 59 would be correct if there had been no previous judicial directives upon which the said corporation could base its request for revocation. Under the factsthe Philippine Distributors did nothing more than to invite the attention ofthe court to the resultant situation that its new order of attachment unjustly nullified the previous order of dissolution. And there is nodoubt in our minds that Judges Rodas and Natividad acted properly in thecircumstances described.
Petition denied with costs.
Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, J., I hereby certify that the Chief Justice voted to deny the petition.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
