G.R. No. 55272 , April 10, 1989
JARDINE-MANILA FINANCE, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, IMPACT CORPORATION, RICARDO DE LEON and EDUARDO DE LEON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jardine-Manila Finance, Inc. (JARDINE) filed a complaint for sum of money against private respondents Impact Corporation (IMPACT) and its sureties, Ricardo and Eduardo de Leon. JARDINE alleged that IMPACT, under a discounting line agreement, assigned its receivables to JARDINE with the obligation to collect from the issuers and remit the proceeds. Despite collecting on these receivables, IMPACT failed to remit the amounts to JARDINE. Concurrently with the complaint, JARDINE applied for a writ of preliminary attachment, alleging in its application that the defendants had a “reservation” not to honor their obligations at the time of executing the deeds of assignment and surety agreement, and that they had no other sufficient security for the claim.
The trial court granted the application and issued the writ. Private respondents moved to dissolve the attachment, arguing the grounds alleged were not among those specified in Rule 57, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, and that the supporting affidavit was defective for failing to state that the amount due was above all legal set-offs or counterclaims. The trial court denied the motion. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals annulled the writ, finding the affidavit in support thereof fatally defective for non-compliance with statutory requirements.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the writ of preliminary attachment for failure of the supporting affidavit to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding that the writ of preliminary attachment was issued without jurisdiction due to a fatally defective affidavit. Rule 57, Section 3 explicitly requires that an application for attachment must be supported by an affidavit stating, among other things, that “the amount due to the applicant is as much as the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims.” JARDINE’s affidavit and application conspicuously omitted this crucial averment. The Court emphasized that an attachment is a harsh, extraordinary remedy, and the rules governing its issuance must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant. The affidavit is the very foundation of the writ; its failure to allege all statutory requisites deprives the court of jurisdiction to issue the writ. Such a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment. Since the mandatory requirement was not met, the proceedings and the writ itself were null and void. The Court found it unnecessary to delve into the substantive issue of whether the alleged “mental reservation” constituted a ground for attachment under Rule 57, as the procedural flaw was dispositive.