GR L 60222; (April, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-60222 April 22, 1992
TRADERS ROYAL BANK, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL (PASAY CITY), BRANCH XXIX, THE HONORABLE MANUEL VALENZUELA, public respondents, G.M. WOOD EXPORT INDUSTRIES, INC. and SONIA GONZALES, private respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Traders Royal Bank filed a complaint for a sum of money with an application for a writ of preliminary attachment against private respondents G.M. Wood Export Industries, Inc. and Sonia Gonzales. The causes of action involved a promissory note and domestic letters of credit. The trial court issued the writ. Subsequently, the parties filed a Joint Motion stipulating that the writ of attachment was not to be lifted and that the attachment/garnishment/levy on the properties of the defendant shall subsist. However, on April 29, 1980, the trial court approved the joint motion but partially lifted the attachment. Petitioner filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration of this partial lifting. The trial court did not act on this motion. Instead, on January 29, 1981, it issued an Order granting private respondents’ urgent motion for the release of a marginal deposit of P197,722.94 to private respondent Gonzales. Petitioner was not furnished a copy of this motion, which lacked a notice of hearing. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The trial court also denied petitioner’s motion to reconsider the April 29, 1980 Order. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals held that due process was not violated as petitioner was afforded a hearing on its motion for reconsideration, and it made findings regarding the promissory note. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the partial lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment and in granting ex-parte the release of the marginal deposit.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals made findings of fact without presentation of evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It held that the marginal deposit of P197,722.94 was not involved in the main case for sum of money, as it pertained to a separate transaction for the importation of machineries and served as collateral security. The trial court acquired no jurisdiction over this deposit as the sheriff’s certification showed no levy or garnishment was made against it; an attachment order is not self-executory. The trial court acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in ordering its release. Furthermore, the trial court’s partial lifting of the writ was capricious as it contravened the parties’ Joint Motion which explicitly stated the writ was not to be lifted. The order for the release of the marginal deposit was issued ex-parte based on a motion that was a mere scrap of paper for lack of notice of hearing and proof of service, violating mandatory procedural rules. This fatal error was not cured by the subsequent hearing on the motion for reconsideration. The Court reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals and the orders of the trial court. The partial lifting of the writ of attachment was also set aside. The second issue was rendered unnecessary.