SPOUSES OLIB VS PASTORAL

G.R NO. 81120 First Division J. CRUZ 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. 1 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. AUGUST 20, 1990

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

HELD: FIRST ISSUE: NO 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 the plaintiff or any proper party. 8

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. 9 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

SECOND ISSUE: NO 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.