G.R. No. 164800 ; July 22, 2009
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Estate of Alfonso Lim, Sr., et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The Republic, through the PCGG, filed an Amended Complaint before the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0030 for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages. The Republic alleged that Alfonso Lim, Sr. and Alfonso Lim, Jr., in collusion with former President Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos, engaged in schemes to amass ill-gotten wealth. Specific acts included unlawfully obtaining timber concessions exceeding constitutional limits, securing a management contract over other companies’ logging concessions, violating bans on cutting and exporting protected trees, and causing a corporate loan to be converted into a public sector debt. The Republic sought the reconveyance of specific properties listed in an annex to the complaint.
Subsequently, the Republic filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment over the respondents’ properties. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion, finding that the Republic failed to establish a prima facie case that the properties sought to be attached were acquired through the alleged ill-gotten wealth. The court noted that the properties listed for attachment were not demonstrably linked to the specific fraudulent acts described in the complaint, such as the timber license agreements. The Republic’s petition for certiorari assailed this denial.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Republic’s motion for a writ of preliminary attachment.

RULING

No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A writ of preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy issued at the commencement of an action or during its pendency, requiring a clear showing that the case is one of those specifically enumerated in Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. For such a writ to issue, the applicant must show a prima facie case that the defendant is guilty of fraud in incurring the obligation or in the performance thereof, and that the attachment is not sought for an improper purpose. The applicant must also establish that the property sought to be attached is specifically linked to the alleged fraudulent act.
The Supreme Court held that the Republic failed to meet this burden. The Sandiganbayan correctly found no clear, competent, and credible evidence demonstrating that the specific real properties and shares of stock listed in the attachment motion were acquired using funds or resources obtained from the alleged fraudulent schemes concerning the timber concessions and loans. The allegations of fraud pertained to specific transactions, but the Republic did not sufficiently trace the proceeds from those transactions to the acquisition of the enumerated assets. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan’s finding that the Republic did not establish a prima facie case for attachment was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, not a capricious or whimsical one amounting to grave abuse. The denial of the motion was affirmed.