G.R. No. L-27419 October 31, 1969
GUILLERMO F. GARCIA and PILAR D. GARCIA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE ANDRES REYES, MOBIL OIL (PHIL.) INCORPORATED, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL and SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Mobil Oil (Phil.) Incorporated (Mobil) filed a complaint against petitioners Guillermo F. and Pilar D. Garcia for collection of P189,335.21 plus interest and attorney’s fees, representing unpaid accounts under a dealership agreement. Mobil sought a preliminary writ of attachment, alleging that petitioner Guillermo F. Garcia was guilty of fraud in contracting the debt, that the petitioners had removed or were about to remove their properties to defraud creditors, and that there was no other sufficient security for the claim. Respondent Judge Andres Reyes issued the writ on September 22, 1966. The sheriffs attached household furnishings and appliances in Quezon City and a motor boat, “Triple Ten,” in Manila.
Petitioners filed a motion to discharge the attachment and to dismiss the complaint. They contended Guillermo F. Garcia was not guilty of fraud, as the contracts were prepared by Mobil’s legal panel; they had not disposed of properties; and the claim was sufficiently secured by chattel mortgages on three vessels valued at P375,000 and a guaranty bond of P25,000. They also alleged Mobil could not truthfully claim its amount was above all legal counterclaims because, eight days before Mobil’s complaint, petitioners had filed an action for specific performance with claims of P363,000 against Mobil in the Manila court.
Petitioners later filed a motion to present evidence on the impropriety of the writ. Respondent Judge, in an order dated March 13, 1967, denied this motion and also granted Mobil’s motion to sell the attached chattels on the ground they were perishable.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction, alleging respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ, denying the motion to lift it, denying the opportunity to present evidence, and ordering the sale of the attached properties.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, particularly in denying petitioners the opportunity to present evidence to justify the lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment, thereby violating due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court did not rule on the propriety of the initial issuance of the writ or the failure to discharge it upon motion. Instead, the Court held that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the denial of petitioners’ opportunity to be heard and present evidence on the motion to discharge the writ raised a serious due process question. The Court found that the challenged order of March 13, 1967, which denied the urgent motion to present evidence and granted the motion to sell, was issued with grave abuse of discretion. The writ of certiorari was granted, annulling the order of March 13, 1967. A writ of mandamus was also granted, directing the judge acting in place of respondent Judge Andres Reyes to hear evidence on petitioners’ motion to discharge the writ of attachment. Costs were imposed on respondent Mobil.