RULE 37: PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT VIRATA vs. AQUINO GR No.

L-35027, September 20, 1973 FACTS: Respondent Tinsay filed a complaint against Lis Hijos and petitioner but was denied. Tinsay filed another action against Los Hijos for nullification of a SPA. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, however the judge granted Tinsays ex parte petition for a writ of attachment against the goods in question. The SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents from enforcing implementing or carrying out the writ of attachment until further orders. ISSUE: Whether or not preliminary attachment is binding to the officials of the Bureau of Customs. RULING: No. The Government of the Philippines having a lien on the goods for the payment of the duties accruing thereon, and being entitled to a virtual custody of them from the time of their arrival in port until the duties are paid or secured, any attachment by the sheriff is an interference with such lien and right of custody. CEBU INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. vs. CA GR No. 123031, October 12, 1999 FACTS: Private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money against Petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion for leave of court top filed a third party complaint against BPI. The trial court dismissed the third party complaint against BPI because of its ancillary claim against the bank. ISSUE:

Whether or not BPIs confiscation of private respondents money constitute garnishment. RULING: Yes. BPIs confiscation of Alegres money constitutes garnishment without the parties going through a valid proceeding court. Garnishment is an attachment by means of which the plaintiff seeks to subject to his claim the property of the defendant in the hands of third person or money owed to such third person or a garnishee to the defendant. The garnishment procedure must be upon proper order of RTC, the court who had jurisdiction over the collection suit filed by BPI against Alegre. In effect, petitioner has not yet tendered a valid payment of its obligation to the private respondent. CAJA vs. NANQUIL AM No. P-04-1885, September 13, 2004 FACTS: Complaint was a defendant in a civil case for Sum of Money which was decided against him. Respondent Sheriff was charged by petitioner for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the rules on execution. Respondent sheriff levied personal properties of the petitioner when the writ of execution did not materialize. Complainant contends that respondent sheriff levied his real property ahead of his personal properties. ISSUE: Whether or not it is the Civil Code or Rules of Court is applicable in the case regarding levying of properties. RULING: The Rules of Court shall govern all cases brought after they take effect, and also all further proceedings in cases then pending. In as much as respondent sheriff started levying the properties of complainant before the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and considering further that the provision he is invoking (Civil Code) was in existent then, it is only proper to apply the rules prevailing when he began levying complainants properties. Since the case stemmed from the final

judgment of the lower court, the pertinent rules are the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding writs of execution and execution of money judgments. PERLA COMPANIA de SEGUROS vs. RAMOLETE GR No. 60887, November 13, 1991 FACTS: This case stemmed from a vehicular accident. Private respondent filed a complaint against Cosme and Nelia as a consequence of the accident. The case was ruled against defendant, hence a Writ of Execution was issued but was returned by the Sheriff unsatisfied. A motion for garnishment was filed praying that an order of garnishment be issued against the insurance policy issued by petitioner in favor of the judgment debtor, the motion was granted. ISSUE: Whether or not insurance policy may be subject to garnishment. RULING: Yes. Garnishment has been defined as a species of attachment for reaching any property or credits pertaining or payable to a judgment debtor. In order that the trial court may acquire jurisdiction to bid the person of the garnishee, it is not necessary that summons be served upon him. All that is necessary is the service upon him of the writ of garnishment. The Rules of Court does not require that the garnishee be served with summons or impleaded in the case in order to make him liable. The court actually acquired jurisdiction over petitioner when it was served with the writ of garnishment of the third party liability insurance police, thus said insurance policy is subject to garnishment. SOLIDBANK vs. CA GR No. 84588, May 29, 1991 FACTS:

Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money, with prayer for preliminary attachment, against Pacific Leasing and Financing Corp. The trial court granted the preliminary attachment. However, when the complaint was amended with the impleading of other parties, the trial judge issued an order dissolving the writ of attachment. As to the legal basis of the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment, the court said that petitioner could not invoke Sec. 1(b) of the Rules of Court because it had no fiduciary relationship with the individual defendants. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent court erred in lifting the writ of preliminary attachment. RULING: Considering that the ground of the writ of preliminary attachment is the unableness of UPLFC to remit collection, there is a need for the trial on the merits of the issue. The discharge of the attachment order on the ground that no such fraud was committed would have the effect of deciding the principal action. The merits of the complaint are not triable in a motion to discharge an attachment. The lifting of the writ which was made to cover even the defendants who did not appeal was not jurisdictionally defective. RULE 58: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LOPEZ vs. CA GR No. 110929, January 20, 2000 FACTS: The present controversy traces its roots to the complaint of recovery of possession and injunction filed by private respondent against petitioner. A hearing on the application for preliminary injunction was held with private respondent presenting his evidence. The petitioners did not present any testimonial evidence and adopted respondents exhibit as their own evidence. The trial court granted the injunction based on the evidence presented.

ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of preliminary injunction is valid. RULING: Yes. Generally, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of ones substantive right or interest. The application of the injunctive writ rests upon the existence of an emergency or of a special reason before the main case can be regularly heard. The private respondent has sufficiently established his right over the subject fishpond. The evidence presented by the private respondent during the hearing for the issuance of the preliminary injunction undoubtedly show private respondents legal right to possess the subject fishpond. It also discloses that petitioners are only fishpond guards of the private respondent. No evidence was presented by the petitioners to refute the claim of private respondent. ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA vs. NLRC GR No, 91980, June 27, 1991 FACTS: SMC filed with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC a complaint against the Union and its members to declare the strike or slowdown illegal. SMC later on filed another complaint against the Union to enjoin and restrain illegal slowdown with prayer for the issuance of a case-and-desist and temporary restraining order. ISSUE: Whether or not NLRC has jurisdiction to issue the temporary restraining order or otherwise grant the preliminary injunction prayed for by SMC. RULING: Yes. The NLRC was given the authority to issue a restraining order or preliminary injunction as long as it follows the rules in issuing the same.

NLRC exercised the power directly and plainly granted to it by subparagraph (e) Article 217 in relation to Article 254 of the Code, and that it faithfully observed the procedure and complied with the conditions for the issuance of preliminary injunction. NLRC acted on SMCs application for immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order ex parte on the ground that substantial and irreparable injury to its property would transpire before the matter could be heard on notice. MARCOS-MANOTOC vs. JUDGE AGCAOILI FACTS: This is a complaint against Judge Agcaoili in connection with the issuance by him of a temporary restraining order in civil case. The complainant alleges that, in issuing the temporary restraining order, respondent judge acted with gross ignorance of the law and with manifest bias and partiality. PALI filed a civil case for preliminary injunction and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO against complainants. Respondent judge issued a TRO. However, respondent judge did not conduct any hearing on the application for a writ of injunction, instead, he extended the effectivity of the TRO. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge erred in issuing the assailed temporary restraining order without notice to the complainant. RULING: Yes. As a rule an application for temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction shall be raffled only after notice to the adverse party and in the presence of such party or counsel. Respondent judge did not notify herein complainants that an application for the issuance of a TRO has been filed. He did not conduct a summary hearing before granting the TRO. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAND vs. CA GR No. 142731, June 8, 2006 FACTS:

Private respondent filed a complaint for damages with prayer for issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the auction sale conducted by petitioner. The trial court issued a TRO and the application for Preliminary Injunction was set for hearing. The application for preliminary injunction was granted which shall take effect upon petitioners filing of bond. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction even if there is not right which should be protected by an injunction. RULING: Injunction may be issued in order to preserve the status quo. Private respondent is not entitled to the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction. In order that preliminary injunction be issued, the applicant should be entitled to the relief demanded and his right is being violated and theres need to enjoin. The issuance of the TRO and preliminary injunction was improper on the reason that the private respondent is not entitled to it. SANTIAGO vs. OMBUDSMAN GR Nos. 99289-90, January 27, 1993 FACTS: Filed directly with the court, ostensibly as an incident in the present special civil action, is petitioners so-called Motion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan from Enforcing its Hold Departure Order with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Oder and/or Preliminary Injunction, with Motion to Set Pending Incident for Hearing. ISSUE: Whether or not Sandiganbayan erred in issuing the hold departure despite the pendency of petitioners motion for reconsideration with the SC. RULING:

It will be remembered that the SC rendered a decision in the present case dismissing the petition for certiorari filed in this case and lifting and setting aside the temporary restraining order it previously issued. A judgment in action for injunction shall not be stayed after its rendition and before appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal. The rule is that the execution of a judgment decreeing the dissolution of a writ of preliminary injunction shall not be stayed before an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal, thus it should also apply to TRO>