Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM.

Civil Procedure Case Digest

2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

OLIB V. PASTORAL

FACTS:

On November 13, 1981, Corazon M. Navia sued Petitioners, for dissolution of their
partnership and other reliefs, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of a preliminary
attachment.

The petition was granted resulting in the attachment of 6 parcels of land belonging to
the petitioners, along with stocks of merchandise in their bodega. The writ was
amended excluding the merchandise.

On May 16, 1985, the petitioners filed a motion to discharge the preliminary attachment
on the ground that the attachment bond executed for one year from November 1983
had already lapsed. Judge Miguel S. Rallos of the RTC of Agusan del Norte and Butuan
City ruled in favor of Petitioners.

On July 20, 1987, the petitioners moved for the discharge of the writ of preliminary
attachment. Navia filed an opposition, contending that as she had perfected her appeal
to the Court of Appeals, the trial court no longer had any jurisdiction over the case.

On August 24, 1987, Judge Edelwina C. Pastoral, who had succeeded Judge Rallos
denied the motion on the ground invoked in the opposition.

The petitioners moved for reconsideration however it was denied. Petitioners filed
another MFR insisting that (a) the attachment had been automatically discharged under
Rule 57, Section 19; and (b) the attachment bond had already lapsed for non-payment
of the premiums. They were rebuffed again.

They then came before this Court, contending that the respondent court committed
grave abuse of discretion in denying their motion.

ISSUES:

(1) WON the attachment bond had already lapsed for non-payment of the premiums.

(2) WON the attachment had been automatically discharged under Rule 57 Section 19.

RULING:

(1) No, the attachment has not lapsed.

Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse

party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time
thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by

Page 1 of 2
 Diaz, Jayson Paolo DM.
Civil Procedure Case Digest
2nd Year - Wesleyan Law School

the plaintiff or any proper party. It is an auxiliary remedy and cannot have an
independent existence apart from the main suit or claim instituted by the plaintiff against
the defendant. Being merely ancillary to a principal proceeding, the attachment must fail
if the suit itself cannot be maintained as the purpose of the writ can no longer be
justified.

The consequence is that where the main action is appealed, the attachment which may
have been issued as an incident of that action, is also considered appealed and so also
removed from the jurisdiction of the court a quo. The attachment itself cannot be the
subject of a separate case independent of the principal action because the attachment
was only an incident of such action.

Coming now to the argument that the attachment was automatically lifted because of
the nonpayment of the premium on the attachment bond, the Court feels it is time again
to correct a common misimpression. The rule is that the bond is not deemed

(2) No, the attachment will only be discharged when the judgment has become
final and executory and not when it is still on appeal.

Finally, on the correct interpretation of Rule 57, Section 19, of the Rules of Court, we
hold that the order of attachment is considered discharged only where the judgment has
already become final and executory and not when it is still on appeal. The obvious
reason is that, except in a few specified cases, execution pending appeal is not allowed.

Page 2 of 2