G.R. No. 259709, August 30, 2023
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ANGEL Y. POBRE AND GINO NICHOLAS POBRE, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (petitioner) entered into Retailer Supply Agreements (RSAs) with respondent Angel Y. Pobre for three Shell gas stations. On October 26, 2017, Angel informed petitioner of his resignation as dealer/operator effective December 16, 2017, citing health reasons. On December 15, 2017, he made a final purchase of Shell products amounting to ₱4,846,555.84. The next day, he requested that this payment be set off against receivables due to him. Petitioner later sent a reconciliation showing an outstanding balance of ₱2,787,529.33. Meanwhile, Angel’s son, respondent Gino Nicholas Pobre, who had assumed ownership of the stations, requested the removal of Shell signages. Petitioner demanded payment from Angel and compliance with the RSAs, and objected to Gino’s request. Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and collection of sum of money against respondents, seeking various damages and a writ of preliminary attachment, alleging fraud under the RSAs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued the writ. Respondents moved for reconsideration and, alternatively, for discharge of the writ. The RTC partly granted this by excluding some damages and reducing the amount covered. Respondents then filed an Omnibus Motion for Inhibition with Motion for Reconsideration, leading to a judge’s inhibition. The re-raffled branch denied the motion for reconsideration. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA lifted and dissolved the writ, finding petitioner failed to prove fraud and that the RTC erred in not determining if respondents had sufficient security for the claim. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the CA erred in lifting and dissolving the Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued against respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. On the procedural issue, the Court held that respondents’ petition for certiorari before the CA was timely. A motion to discharge an attachment is a distinct remedy under the Rules, not a mere motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, the CA correctly exercised its discretion to relax procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice. On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that the CA correctly found the requisites for issuing a writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1(d), Rule 57 were not met. Petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of fraud. Angel’s final purchase was made in the ordinary course of business during the RSA’s subsistence, and his expressed willingness to pay the balance negated fraudulent intent. Mere failure to fulfill contractual obligations does not equate to fraud. Regarding the fourth site, no contract was executed; thus, fraud in inducing consent could not apply. As for Gino, petitioner failed to allege specific fraudulent acts by him. Additionally, the RTC gravely abused its discretion by not determining whether respondents had sufficient security for the claim, which is a mandatory requisite under the rule. The writ was improperly issued.