GR 217583; (August, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 217583 , August 04, 2021
Ignacio S. Dumaran, Petitioner, vs. Teresa Llamedo, Sharon Magallanes and Ginalyn Cubeta, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ignacio S. Dumaran, an authorized dealer of Pilipinas Shell, filed a Complaint for Sum of Money, Damages and Attorney’s Fees with a Prayer for the Ex-Parte Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against respondents Teresa Llamedo, Sharon Magallanes, and Ginalyn Cubeta. Dumaran alleged that respondents purchased diesel and gasoline fuel from him on credit, incurred an outstanding obligation of P7,416,918.55, and issued post-dated checks that were dishonored for insufficient funds/account closed. In his Affidavit, Dumaran further alleged that respondents could not be located and were about to dispose of their properties with intent to defraud him. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued the Writ of Attachment. Respondents filed a Motion to Quash the Writ, which the RTC denied. Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA set aside the RTC Orders, holding that Dumaran did not sufficiently show factual circumstances of alleged fraud to justify the writ. The CA denied Dumaran’s Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the allegations of fraud in the complaint and affidavit do not meet the legal requirements to sustain the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not finding that a counter-bond was necessary for the discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the Petition, affirming the CA’s ruling.
1. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the CA did not err. The allegations of Dumaran in his Complaint and Affidavit failed to meet the requirements for fraud under Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. The pleadings did not show that Dumaran was defrauded into accepting respondents’ offer or that respondents intended from the beginning not to pay their obligations. They lacked specifics on wrongful acts or willful omissions knowingly committed to deceive Dumaran. Non-payment of a debt, by itself, does not automatically equate to fraud. The Court cited Republic v. Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc., explaining that fraud involves voluntary execution of a wrongful act or willful omission intended to deceive. It also contrasted the case with Metro, Inc. v. Lara’s Gifts and Decors, Inc. (where fraud was sufficiently shown) and PCL Industries Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (where mere failure to pay was insufficient).
2. On the second issue, the Court found the argument without merit. Since the writ of preliminary attachment was improperly issued due to insufficient grounds, the provision on discharge of attachment by filing a counter-bond under Rule 57, Section 12 of the Rules of Court was inapplicable. The proper remedy for respondents was a motion to discharge the attachment on the ground that it was improperly or irregularly issued under Rule 57, Section 13, which they availed of through their Motion to Quash.