G.R. No. 55381 . March 26, 1984.
SPOUSES JULIETA SALGADO and JOSE SALGADO, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK, Respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (Bank) filed a collection suit against the spouses Salgado to recover on a promissory note. In its verified complaint, the Bank prayed for a writ of preliminary attachment, alleging the Salgados had fraudulently misappropriated sugar proceeds securing the loan and were disposing of properties to defraud creditors. An affidavit by a bank officer stated there was “no sufficient security for the claim.” The trial court granted the attachment. The Salgados moved to quash the writ, contending the Bank made fraudulent misrepresentations by deleting the notation “REM” (Real Estate Mortgage) from the copy of the promissory note attached to the complaint, thereby falsely making the loan appear unsecured. They asserted the obligation was in fact fully secured by a series of valid, existing, and duly annotated real estate mortgages.
After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and lifted the writ. The Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which initially dismissed it but later, upon reconsideration, reversed itself and authorized the issuance of the attachment. The Salgados elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of preliminary attachment was improperly issued.

RULING

Yes, the writ was improperly issued. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals’ resolution and reinstated the trial court’s order discharging the attachment. The legal logic is anchored on the strict requirements for issuing a writ of attachment, a harsh and rigorous remedy. Under Section 3, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, an order of attachment requires an affidavit showing, among other grounds, that “there is no other sufficient security for the claim.” The Court emphasized that a writ should not issue if the debt is already secured by sufficient collateral, to prevent creditors from tying up more of the debtor’s property than necessary.
Here, the Bank’s foundational affidavit claim of insufficient security was demonstrably false. It was undisputed that the promissory note was secured by a series of valid real estate mortgages duly registered in favor of the Bank. Since a key factual allegation for the attachment was untrue, the writ was deemed improperly or irregularly issued under Section 13, Rule 57. The Court, citing precedent, ruled that attachment statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant. The duty lies with the court to ensure all legal requisites are complied with before issuing the writ. As the Bank failed to establish the absence of sufficient security, a mandatory prerequisite, the attachment could not be sustained.