PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

RULE 57 PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

1.Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court is an ancillary remedy
applied for not for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize upon the relief sought
and expected to be granted in the main or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to
the main action
As such, it is available during its pendency which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and
protect certain rights and interests during the interim, awaiting the ultimate effects of a final
judgment in the case. In addition, attachment is also availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over
the action by actual or constructive seizure of the property in those instances where personal or
substituted service of summons on the defendant cannot be effected.

2.Ligon vs. RTC of Makati, Br. Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken
56 into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security
for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party.
Case law instructs that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against the particular
property, enforceable against the whole world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a
specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very
dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property
attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owner’s debt. The lien
continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until the
judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law.
Thus, a prior registration of an attachment lien creates a preference, such that when an
attachment has been duly levied upon a property, a purchaser thereof subsequent to the
attachment takes the property subject to the said attachment. As provided under PD 1529, said
registration operates as a form of constructive notice to all persons.

3.Torres vs. Satsatin A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court
where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant therein,
the same to be held thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment
that might be secured in the said action by the attaching creditor against the defendant.

In accepting a surety bond, it is necessary that all the requisites for its approval are met otherwise
the bond should be rejected
In provisional remedies, particularly that of preliminary attachment, the distinction between the
issuance and the implementation of the writ of attachment is of utmost importance to the validity
of the writ. The distinction is indispensably necessary to determine when jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant should be acquired in order to validly implement the writ of attachment
upon his person.

In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 260 (1992), this Court held that the grant of the
provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages: first, the court issues the order granting
the application; second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and
third, the writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ
commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such
jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any
order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.

The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service of
summons on the defendant whether by personal service, substituted service or by publication as
warranted by the circumstances of the case; Subsequent service of summons does not confer a
retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for
retroactivity of a belated service.

4.Mangila vs. CA Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy “at the commencement of
the action or at any time thereafter.” This phrase refers to the date of filing of the complaint which
is the moment that marks “the commencement of the action.” The reference plainly is to a time
before summons is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues.

An alias summons belatedly served on a defendant cannot be deemed to cure the fatal defect in
the enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment
5.Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan, The determination of the existence of grounds to discharge a writ of attachment rests in the sound
discretion of the lower courts.

Two courses of action to quash attachment:

1. To file a counterbond
2. To quash the attachment on the ground that it was irregularly or improvidently issued; The
rule contemplates that the defect must be in the very issuance of the attachment writ.

When the writ of attachment is issued upon a ground which is at the same time the applicant’s
cause of action, the only other way the writ can be lifted or dissolved is by a counterbond.

6.Luzon Dev. Bank vs. that “an order of attachment may be issued either ex parte or upon motion with notice and
Krishman hearing by the court in which the action is pending, or by the Court of Appeals (CA) or the
Supreme Court (SC), and must require the sheriff of the court to attach so much of the property in
the Philippines of the party against whom it is issued, not exempt from execution, as may be
sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless such party makes deposit or gives a bond as
hereinafter provided in an amount equal to that fixed in the order, which may be the amount
sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand or the value of the property to be attached as stated by
the applicant, exclusive of costs.”

once the writ of attachment has been issued, the only remedy of the petitioners in lifting the same
is through a cash deposit or the filing of the counter-bond

Section 5 of the same Rule likewise states that “[t]he sheriff enforcing the writ shall without delay
and with all reasonable diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, only so
much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom the writ is issued, not exempt
from execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, unless the former makes a
deposit with the court from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the
applicant, in an amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the
value of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs.”

7.Northern Luzon Island Co. vs. in view of the nature of a preliminary attachment, definitively ruled that the attachment itself
Garcia cannot be the subject of a separate action independent of the principal action because the
attachment was only an incident of such action

It is an auxiliary remedy and cannot have an independent existence apart from the main suit or
claim instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. Being merely ancillary to a principal
proceeding, the attachment must fail if the suit itself cannot be maintained as the purpose of the
writ can no longer be justified.

8.Excellent Quality Apparel vs. Attachment Bond; The party applying for the order of attachment must thereafter give a bond
Visayan Surety executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court in its order granting the issuance of
the writ

Cash deposits and counter-bonds posted by the defendant to lift the writ of attachment is a
security for the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may obtain; they are thus, mere
replacement of the property previously attached.

Surety Bond; Under Section 20, Rule 57, in relation to Section 4 therein, the surety bond shall
answer for all the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and all damages which he
may sustain by reason of the attachment.

Counter-Bond; Under Section 17, Rule 57, in relation to Section 12 therein, the cash deposit or the
counter-bond shall secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in
the action.

9.Watercraft Venture Corp. vs. For the issuance of an ex parte issuance of the preliminary attachment to be valid, an affidavit of
Wolfe merit and an applicant’s bond must be filed with the court in which the action is pending. Such
bond executed to the adverse party in the amount fixed by the court is subject to the conditions
that the applicant will pay: (1) all costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party; and (2) all
damages which such party may sustain by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally
adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto.
 The applicant for a writ of preliminary attachment must sufficiently show the factual circumstances
of the alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor’s mere
nonpayment of the debt or failure to comply with his obligation.

10. Phil Airconditioning Center Various Modes of Discharging an Attachment.—There are various modes of discharging an
vs. RCJ Lines attachment under Rule 57, viz.: (1) by depositing cash or posting a counter-bond under Section 12;
(2) by proving that the attachment bond was improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or that
the bond is insufficient under Section 13; (3) by showing that the attachment is excessive under
Section 13; and (4) by claiming that the property is exempt from execution under Section 2.

To merit an award of actual damages arising from a wrongful attachment, the attachment
defendant must prove, with the best evidence obtainable, the fact of loss or injury suffered and
the amount thereof

RULE 58 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1.Idolor vs. CA Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights and interests. Before an
injunction can be issued, it is essential that the following requisites be present: 1) there must be a
right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; 2) the act against which the injunction is to
be directed is a violation of such right.

It is always a ground for denying injunction that the party seeking it has insufficient title or interest
to sustain it, and no claim to the ultimate relief sought—in other words, that she shows no equity
—and the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground
for an injunction.

2.Gustilo vs. Real The foregoing clearly show that whenever an application for a TRO is filed, the court may act on
the application only after all parties have been notified and heard in a summary hearing. In other
words, a summary hearing may not be dispensed with. In the instant case, respondent admits that
he issued the injunctive writ sought on May 29, 1997 after receiving the applicant’s evidence ex
parte. His failure to abide by Administrative Circular No. 20-95 in issuing the first TRO is grave
abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.

Where an elected official had been duly proclaimed and had taken his oath of office, he is entitled
to all the right of said office unless his election is annulled, and it cannot be seen how his exercise
of the rights as such official could cause an irreparable injury or violate the right of the losing
candidate so as to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order “to maintain the status
quo.”

3.Lagrosas vs. Bristo-Myers The injunction bond is intended as a security for damages in case it is finally decided that the
injunction ought not to have been granted, to protect the enjoined party against loss or damage by
reason of the injunction, and the bond is usually conditioned accordingly.

4.Jenosa vs. Delariarte

5.Solid Builders Inc. vs. China
Bank
6.Plaza vs. Lustiva
7.Office of the Ombudsman vs.
De Chavez
(compare With Ombudsman
vs. Sison)
8.Novecio vs. Lim
9.Liberty Broadcasting
Network vs. Atlocom
10.Republic vs. Cortez
RULE 59 RECEIVERSHIP
1.Larrobis, Jr. vs. Phil
Veterans Bank
2.Tantano vs.Espina-
Caboverde
3.Koruga vs. Arcenas
 4.Chavez vs. CA
5.Hiteroza vs. Cruzada
RULE 60 REPLEVIN
1.Orosa vs. CA
2.Smart Communications vs.
Astorga
3.Hao vs. Andres
4.Navarro vs. Escobido
5.Agner vs. BPI Family
Savings Bank
RULE 61 SUPPORT
1.De Asis vs. CA
2.People vs. Manahan
3.Lim vs. Lim
4.Gotardo vs. Buling
5.Lim-Lua vs. Lua
6.Republic vs. Yahon
7.Salas vs. Matusalem

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION

RULE 62 INTERPLEADER
1.Wack-Wack Golf and
Country Club vs. Won
2.Eternal Gardens vs. IAC
3.Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon
Realty
4.Bank of Commerce vs.
Planters Dev. Bank
RULE 63 DECLARATORY RELIEF
1.Almeda vs. Bathala
Marketing Ind.
2.Republic vs. Orbecido
3.Malana vs. Tappa
4.Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar
Council
5.Sabitsana vs.Muertegui
6.Dept. of Finance vs. De la
Cruz, Jr.
7.Erice vs. Sison
RULE 64 REVIEW OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDERS OF THE COMELEC AND COA
1. Alliance for Nationalism and
Democracy vs. COMELEC
RULE 65 CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
CERTIORARI
1.Ampil vs. Ombudsman
2.A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs.
Mondejar
3.Maglalang vs. PAGCOR
4.People vs. Castaneda
5.UP Board of Regents vs.
Ligot-Teylan
6.Tuazon vs. RD of Caloocan
7.Province of Leyte vs. Energy
Dev. Corp.
8.Cawad vs. Abad
PROHIBITION
1.Vivas vs. Monetary Board of
BSP
2.Corales vs. Republic
3.Tan vs. C
MANDAMUS
1.Hipos, Sr. vs. Bay
2.Sanchez vs. Lastimosa
3.Social Justice Society vs.
Atienza
4.Funa vs. Manila
Economic and Cultural
Office
5.Cudia vs. Superintendent of
PMA
6.Villanueva vs. JBC
RULE 66 QUO WARRANTO

RULE 68 FORECLOSURE OF
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
RULE 69 PARTITION
RULE 70 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
RULE 71 CONTEMPT