G.R. No. 38316; September 27, 1933
GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG and MARIANO CU UNJIENG, petitioners, vs. MARIANO A. ALBERT and LEONARD S. GODDARD, both acting as Judge of First Instance of Manila, and NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent National City Bank of New York filed a complaint against petitioners Guillermo and Mariano Cu Unjieng for a sum of money. The bank alleged that the petitioners, through a conspiracy and with intent to defraud, prepared forged warehouse receipts and corporate share certificates and used them to fraudulently obtain loans and cash advances. Upon filing the complaint, the bank secured a writ of attachment against the petitioners’ properties. The petitioners moved to discharge the attachment, which was denied by the trial court. The bank subsequently amended its complaint and filed an amended affidavit for attachment with the court’s leave.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of attachment may be validly issued in an action for a sum of money based on an alleged ex delicto cause of action (arising from forgery and fraud), under Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the validity of the writ of attachment. The Court held that the action fell under paragraph 4 of Section 412, which authorizes attachment “[w]hen the defendant has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought.” The Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that Section 412 applies only to actions arising from contract, express or implied. Reading the statute as a whole, paragraphs 2 and 4 of Section 412 cover specific ex delicto actions (like embezzlement and fraud in incurring an obligation). To limit the entire section to contractual actions would render these specific paragraphs meaningless. Since the complaint and affidavit clearly alleged fraud in incurring the obligation, the attachment was properly issued under Section 412.

AI Generated by Armztrong.