GR 175587; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175587; September 21, 2007
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner PCIB filed a complaint for sum of money against respondent Alejandro with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment. PCIB alleged that Alejandro, a resident of Hong Kong, had fraudulently withdrawn his unassigned deposits despite a verbal promise not to do so. The trial court issued the writ ex parte, leading to the garnishment of Alejandro’s bank deposits. Alejandro moved to quash the writ, asserting that his withdrawal was not fraudulent and that he was a Philippine resident, maintaining a permanent home in Quezon City and an office in Makati as a law firm partner, with his stay in Hong Kong being temporary.
The trial court quashed the writ, finding no fraudulent intent in the withdrawal and that PCIB had misrepresented Alejandro’s residency, as it regularly transacted with him at his Philippine addresses. This order became final after PCIB’s petitions for certiorari and review were dismissed. Alejandro then filed a claim for damages on the attachment bond, presenting evidence that a check for attorney’s fees was dishonored due to the garnishment and testifying to his professional standing.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Alejandro is entitled to damages for the wrongful issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of damages. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a writ of attachment, being a harsh and extraordinary remedy, must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant. A claimant who secures an attachment wrongfully is liable for damages. The trial court’s finding that the attachment was improperly issued—due to the absence of fraud and the misrepresentation regarding Alejandro’s residency—had already attained finality. This final judgment established the wrongful issuance as a fact.
Consequently, under Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, the defendant is entitled to recover damages sustained by reason of the attachment. The award is justified by the garnishment’s direct effect, such as the dishonor of Alejandro’s check, which impaired his financial credibility and professional reputation. The Court found the trial court’s factual determination on the amount of damages, supported by evidence, to be conclusive. The surety on the attachment bond is solidarily liable with PCIB, but for any award exceeding the bond amount, PCIB is solely responsible. The ruling emphasizes that a final determination of wrongful attachment conclusively establishes the right to damages for injuries proximately caused by the garnishment.