GR 193572; (April, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193572 APRIL 4, 2018
TSUNEISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES (CEBU), INC., Petitioner vs MIS MARITIME CORPORATION, Respondent
FACTS
Petitioner Tsuneishi Heavy Industries (Cebu), Inc. (Tsuneishi) dry-docked and repaired respondent MIS Maritime Corporation’s (MIS) vessel, M/T MIS-1. After the repairs, during an engine test while the vessel was still at Tsuneishi’s yard, the engine sustained damage. Tsuneishi, denying fault, voluntarily replaced the damaged parts. MIS, however, refused to pay Tsuneishi’s bill, claiming lost income due to the vessel’s downtime and sought to set off this claim against the repair bill. Tsuneishi filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enforce a maritime lien under the Ship Mortgage Decree and sought a writ of preliminary attachment against MIS’s vessel.
The RTC granted the writ of attachment. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, finding no factual basis for the attachment. The CA held that the allegations of fraud in Tsuneishi’s complaint and supporting affidavit were mere conclusions of law, insufficient to establish a prima facie case for attachment. Tsuneishi elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court held that the grant of a writ of preliminary attachment requires a clear showing, based on specific factual allegations, that the case falls under the grounds enumerated in Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, such as fraud. The applicant must sufficiently allege and later prove the factual circumstances constituting the alleged fraud.
In this case, Tsuneishi’s complaint and the supporting affidavit failed to meet this standard. The allegations that MIS’s act of refusing to pay and setting off an unliquidated claim for lost profits constituted fraud were deemed to be general conclusions of law, not statements of specific facts. The Court emphasized that a simple refusal to pay a debt, by itself, does not equate to fraud warranting attachment. The supporting affidavit merely reiterated the allegations in the complaint without providing additional factual particulars detailing how MIS committed fraud in incurring the obligation or in the performance thereof. Consequently, the CA correctly found no factual or legal basis for the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment.