G.R. No. 203240 . March 18, 2015.
NORTHERN ISLANDS, CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES DENNIS and CHERYLIN GARCIA, doing business under the name and style “Ecolamp Multi Resources,”, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Northern Islands Co., Inc. filed a complaint with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment against respondents Spouses Dennis and Cherylin Garcia before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-53699. The complaint alleged non-payment for delivered appliances amounting to P8,040,825.17. The RTC issued the writ after petitioner posted a bond in the same amount. Respondents filed a Motion to Discharge Excess Attachment, claiming the attached properties were valued at P17,273,409.73, making the attachment excessive by P9,232,564.56. The RTC denied this motion. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97448. Meanwhile, the RTC rendered a Decision in the main case dismissing petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner appealed this decision to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 98237), and the RTC ordered the elevation of the records. The CA, in the certiorari case, partly granted respondents’ petition, ordering the RTC to appoint a commissioner to determine the value of the attached properties and discharge any excess attachment. Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the present petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the RTC lost jurisdiction over the matter of the preliminary attachment after petitioner appealed the decision in the main case and the records were transmitted to the CA.
2. Whether the CA erred in ordering the appointment of a commissioner and the subsequent discharge of any excess attachment.

RULING

The petition is granted. The assailed CA Decision and Resolution are set aside.
1. Yes, the RTC lost jurisdiction. Under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. Petitioner perfected its appeal of the RTC’s decision in the main case by timely filing a Notice of Appeal and paying docket fees. The RTC confirmed this and ordered the elevation of records to the CA. Respondents did not appeal, resulting in the lapse of their period to appeal. Consequently, the RTC lost jurisdiction over the main case.
2. The issue of appointing a commissioner is moot. With the RTC’s loss of jurisdiction over the main case, it also lost jurisdiction over all ancillary matters, including the preliminary attachment. Citing Sps. Olib v. Judge Pastoral, the Court ruled that a preliminary attachment is a provisional and ancillary remedy that cannot exist independently from the main action. Since the main action was appealed, the attachment, being incidental, was also considered appealed and removed from the RTC’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the propriety of conducting a trial by commissioners to determine excess attachment was rendered moot by the supervening appeal.