G.R. No. 93262, December 29, 1991
Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, Queensland Hotel or Motel or Queensland Tourist Inn, and Teodorico Adarna

FACTS

Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (Davao Light) filed a verified complaint for sum of money and damages against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna. The complaint included an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment. On May 3, 1989, the trial court granted the application and subsequently issued the writ on May 11, 1989, upon the filing of the required bond. Service of summons, the complaint, and the writ of attachment on the defendants was effected only on May 12, 1989. The defendants moved to discharge the attachment, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ because it was granted and issued before the court acquired jurisdiction over their persons via summons. The trial court denied the motion.
The Court of Appeals nullified the writ of preliminary attachment. It ruled that a court does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant until summons is served or voluntary appearance is made. It held that the inclusion of an “ex parte” prayer does not confer jurisdiction retroactively. Thus, the writ issued before service of summons was void for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

May a writ of preliminary attachment validly issue ex parte against a defendant before the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant’s person through service of summons or voluntary appearance?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the writ of preliminary attachment. The Court clarified the distinct concepts of jurisdiction over different aspects of a case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is invoked by the filing of the complaint. Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired by that same filing, as it constitutes voluntary submission to the court’s authority. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained separately, through service of summons or voluntary appearance.
The Court held that the validity of provisional remedies, like attachment, is not dependent on prior jurisdiction over the defendant. An application for a writ of preliminary attachment can be granted ex parte precisely because its purpose is to seize the defendant’s property at the inception of an action, often before the defendant can be summoned, to secure any potential judgment. The Rules of Court (Rule 57) permit this procedure. The requisites for its issuance are founded on the grounds stated in the Rule and the plaintiff’s compliance with procedural requirements (e.g., filing a bond), not on the court having first obtained jurisdiction over the defendant. To rule otherwise would defeat the very purpose of attachment as a provisional remedy to prevent the defendant from disposing of property pending litigation. The trial court validly issued the writ upon Davao Light’s ex parte application and posting of the bond.