G.R. No. 225610 , February 19, 2020
BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION, ROGELIO T. SERAFICA AND LUIS G. NAKPIL, PETITIONERS, V. MAA GENERAL ASSURANCE PHILS., INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent MAA General Assurance Phils., Inc. (MAA) filed a Complaint with a prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against petitioners Burgundy Realty Corporation, Rogelio T. Serafica, and Luis G. Nakpil for recovery of a sum of money. MAA alleged it issued a surety bond for a loan of Burgundy from Chinatrust Bank. Petitioners executed an Indemnity Agreement to hold MAA harmless. After Burgundy defaulted, Chinatrust demanded payment from MAA, which MAA paid. MAA then demanded reimbursement from petitioners. Despite an agreement for settlement, petitioners allegedly failed to comply with the terms. MAA claimed petitioners committed fraud in incurring the obligation, warranting attachment under Rule 57. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the application and issued the writ. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Writ, which the RTC denied. Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari. The CA denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. During the CA proceedings, the RTC decided the main action for sum of money in favor of MAA. Petitioners appealed that main decision to the CA (docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 105560). The Supreme Court, in a related case (G.R. No. 243036), ultimately affirmed the CA decision in the main action, which included a ruling that the writ of preliminary attachment was properly issued.

ISSUE

Whether the petition, which questions the propriety of the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment, has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition is denied for being moot. A case becomes moot when a supervening event renders a resolution of the issue of no practical value. The Supreme Court took judicial notice of its final ruling in G.R. No. 243036, which stemmed from the main action for sum of money. In that related case, the Court affirmed the CA decision that upheld the RTC’s judgment in favor of MAA and specifically ruled that the writ of preliminary attachment was properly issued because MAA substantiated its allegation of fraud under Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Since the sole issue in the present petition is the propriety of the writ of attachment, and that identical issue has already been conclusively resolved with finality in G.R. No. 243036, any further adjudication here would serve no practical legal purpose. The petition is therefore moot.