G.R. No. 81120, August 20, 1990
Sps. Oscar and Roberta R. Olib, petitioners, vs. Hon. Edelwina C. Pastoral, Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City, Branch III and Corazon M. Navia, respondents.

FACTS

Corazon M. Navia sued spouses Oscar and Roberta Olib in 1981, securing a writ of preliminary attachment over six parcels of land owned by the Olibs. On February 25, 1986, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment in favor of the Olibs, ordering Navia to pay them damages. Although the decision’s text indicated Navia was not entitled to the attachment, the dispositive portion did not order its discharge. Navia perfected her appeal to the Court of Appeals on April 16, 1986. Subsequently, the Olibs filed a motion in the RTC to discharge the writ, arguing the attachment bond had lapsed and that the judgment in their favor warranted its lifting.
Respondent Judge Edelwina Pastoral denied the motion on August 24, 1987. She ruled that under Rule 41, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case upon perfection of the appeal, except for orders to protect and preserve rights not involved in the appeal. She held that discharging the attachment, which secured the judgment now on appeal, would disturb rather than preserve the parties’ rights and alter the status quo pending the appellate court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to discharge the writ of preliminary attachment after the perfection of Navia’s appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The denial was legally sound. First, the Court clarified that the lapse of the attachment bond due to non-payment of premiums does not automatically terminate the bond or discharge the writ. Citing precedents like Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Villarama, the Court held that unless the bond contract expressly stipulates that non-payment extinguishes the undertaking, the bond remains effective. The bond in question contained no such stipulation.
Second, the Court interpreted Rule 57, Section 19, which provides for the discharge of an attachment upon judgment for the party against whom it was issued. The Court held this discharge is not automatic upon the rendition of a favorable judgment but only when that judgment becomes final and executory. Since Navia’s appeal was pending, the judgment was not final. To discharge the attachment during the appeal would, in effect, permit execution pending appeal, which is generally prohibited. The ancillary remedy of attachment is deemed elevated to the appellate court along with the main case. Therefore, the proper venue for the Olibs’ motion was the Court of Appeals. The petition was dismissed.