GR 171741; (November, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171741 ; November 27, 2009
METRO, INC. and SPOUSES FREDERICK JUAN and LIZA JUAN, Petitioners, vs. LARA’S GIFTS AND DECORS, INC., LUIS VILLAFUERTE, JR. and LARA MARIA R. VILLAFUERTE, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against petitioners, alleging that petitioners defrauded them of unpaid commissions under a 2001 Agreement. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted the writ. Petitioners moved to discharge the writ, arguing the agreement was invalid, unauthenticated, and that respondents failed to substantiate their specific allegations of fraud. The RTC granted the motion and lifted the writ, finding insufficient evidence that petitioners were motivated by malice or fraud in their contractual dealings.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in discharging the writ of preliminary attachment without requiring petitioners to post a counter-bond.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between the two grounds for discharging a writ of preliminary attachment under the Rules of Court. A writ may be discharged under Section 13, Rule 57 if it was improperly or irregularly issued. Alternatively, under Section 12, it may be discharged by posting a counter-bond. Crucially, when the ground for the writ (here, fraud) is also the very cause of action in the main case, a hearing on a motion to discharge based on the merits of that ground effectively forces a premature trial on the merits via a mere motion. This is prohibited. The RTC erred in conducting such a hearing, evaluating the evidence of fraud, and concluding its insufficiency. Since fraud was the core of the complaint, the only permissible method for petitioners to secure the discharge of the writ at that stage was to post a counter-bond pursuant to Section 12. The RTC’s order discharging the writ without requiring a bond was therefore annulled, and the case was remanded with the directive that the writ shall remain unless a proper counter-bond is filed.