EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION VS SPECIAL STEEL PI

Topic: II.N Claim for Damages (Section 20, Rule 57)

Plaintiff- A Respondent- B

Ruling: For such wrongful preliminary attachment, plaintiffs may be held liable for damages. However,
B is entitled only to such damages as its evidence would allow, for the wrongfulness of an
attachment does not automatically warrant the award of damages. The debtor still has the
burden of proving the nature and extent of the injury that it suffered by reason of the wrongful
attachment.

Facts: B filed a complaint for damages with application for a writ of preliminary attachment against A.
The trial court granted such writ which caused B to post a counter- bond of P30, 204.26 for it to
be lifted. However, the court found that B’s personal properties were wrongfully attached, and
is asking for damages.

Question: Is B entitled for damages?

Ruling:
Yes, he is entitled.

In the case of Equitable Banking vs Special Steel, the supreme court held that for such wrongful
preliminary attachment, plaintiffs may be held liable for damages.

Here, it was found that B’s personal properties were wrongfully attached, hence he is entitled to
claim for damages. However, B can only claim such damages as its evidence would allow, for
the wrongfulness of an attachment does not automatically warrant the award of damages. The
debtor still has the burden of proving the nature and extent of the injury that it suffered by
reason of the wrongful attachment.

Thus, B has a claim for and is entitled to recover actual damages, the total amount of
P30,204.26 in premiums for a counter- bond.