G.R. No. L-73341 August 21, 1987
THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION (SOLIDBANK), ET AL. vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

FACTS

Respondent Nation’s Knitting Enterprises, Inc. (Knitting) obtained loans from petitioner Solidbank, secured by real estate and chattel mortgages and trust receipts. Upon Knitting’s default, Solidbank initiated foreclosure. To prevent this, Knitting, through its treasurer Kiok Lay, filed an injunction suit (Civil Case No. 9609-P), alleging the mortgages were void due to lack of corporate authority. Solidbank filed an Answer with a counterclaim for the sums due and sought a writ of preliminary attachment, which the trial court granted. The sheriff attached Knitting’s properties.
Subsequently, the trial judge issued an order to “maintain the present status quo.” Solidbank’s counsel interpreted this as requiring the continued holding of the already-attached properties. When Knitting’s driver and manager attempted to remove machinery, the counsel and bank guards physically prevented them. Knitting then filed a separate civil case for damages against Solidbank and its counsel and guards, alleging that the obstruction was a tortious act exceeding the writ’s scope. The trial court dismissed this case, but the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed, awarding Knitting substantial damages.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners (Solidbank, its counsel, and guards) are liable for damages for preventing the removal of the attached properties based on their interpretation of the “status quo” order.

RULING

No, the petitioners are not liable. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s decision and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of the court order and the absence of actionable wrong. The trial court’s order to “maintain the present status quo” was issued in the very case where the attachment was in effect. The “status quo” at that time was the continued custody of the properties under the valid writ of preliminary attachment. Therefore, Solidbank’s counsel acted correctly and within legal bounds in preventing the removal of the properties to preserve that exact status. His interpretation was a reasonable legal conclusion.
The Court emphasized that if Knitting believed the order lifted the attachment or authorized removal, its proper recourse was to seek immediate judicial clarification from the issuing court, not to unilaterally remove the properties and then sue for damages when prevented. Any business losses Knitting allegedly suffered were attributable to its own failure to use available legal remedies to resolve the ambiguity. The petitioners’ actions, taken to comply with a court order, did not constitute the willful and unlawful act necessary to sustain a claim for damages. The separate damage case was barred, as the validity of the attachment and the propriety of acts done under it were matters already within the primary jurisdiction of the court that issued the writ in the main foreclosure case.