G.R. No. 105409 . March 1, 1993.
MASTER TOURS and TRAVEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, (Twelfth Division), HON. LEONARDO I. CRUZ, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, FRANCISCO SALVADOR, Deputy Sheriff, RTC of Manila, Branch 25, and CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., respondents.

FACTS

On February 28, 1991, petitioner Master Tours and Travel Corporation was served with summons, a copy of the complaint for sum of money filed by private respondent Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., and an Order of Attachment dated February 21, 1991. The sheriff immediately levied upon petitioner’s properties equivalent to Cathay’s claim. Petitioner moved to set aside the order of attachment, arguing there was no prior notice or hearing and the complaint’s averments were insufficient. Pending resolution, petitioner filed its answer. The trial court denied the motion to discharge the attachment. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. Pending resolution, petitioner’s counsel and vice-president were allegedly coerced into entering a compromise agreement with Cathay. Petitioner subsequently moved to withdraw this compromise agreement before court approval. The trial court jointly heard the motion for reconsideration and the motion to withdraw the compromise agreement. Pending resolution, the sheriff and Cathay’s counsel allegedly continued harassment and garnished petitioner’s bank deposits. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was denied as the trial court had not yet ruled on the twin motions. On October 17, 1991, the trial court denied petitioner’s twin motions. Petitioner again sought recourse from the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court could validly issue a writ of preliminary attachment ex-parte, prior to notice and hearing and before acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
2. Whether a compromise agreement, not yet approved by the court, can be withdrawn.

RULING

1. Yes. The Supreme Court, citing Davao Light and Power, Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, ruled that a preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy that may be granted at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter. The phrase “at the commencement of the action” refers to the filing of the complaint, which can be before summons is served on the defendant. The court may issue the writ ex-parte if satisfied, upon consideration of the applicant’s affidavit, that a sufficient cause of action exists, the case falls under Section 1 of Rule 57, there is no other sufficient security, and the amount due is as much as the sum for which the order is granted. The applicant must post a bond. No principle prohibits its issuance before the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant’s person.
2. The propriety of withdrawal is a question of fact in this case. The general rule, citing Arkoncel, Jr. v. Lagamon, is that a judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is immediately executory unless a motion is filed to set it aside on grounds of fraud, mistake, or duress. In this specific case, the trial court found the compromise agreement to be a valid document binding on the petitioner, not vitiated by lack of authority or intimidation. The Supreme Court deemed the issue of withdrawing the unapproved compromise agreement to be more a question of fact than of law under the circumstances.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition was DENIED.