MINDANAO SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC ( formerly Davao

Savings and Loan Association ) & FRANCISCO VILLAMOR vs CA , Poly

Mercado and Juan MERCADO 172 scra 480
Ponente: Grino-Aquino, J.:
Facts:
Private respondents filed in the RTC of Davao a complaint against
defendants D.S. Homes and its directors for Rescission of contract and damages
with a prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary attachment. The court issued an
order granting ex parte the application for a writ of preliminary attachment.
Petitioners herein filed motions to quash the writ but it was denied by the court. D.S.
Homes et.al therefore offered a counterbond of P1,752,861.41 per certificate issued
by Land Bank of the Philippines which the trial court accepted. Thus, the writ was
lifted. Petitioners then filed in the CA a petition for certiorari to annul the order of
attachment and the denial of their motion to quash the same. CA dismissed it and
remanded the records in RTC for expeditious proceedings. CA held that objections
against the writ may no longer be invoked once a counterbond is filed for its lifting
or dissolution. Hence, a petition for review was filed in SC which denied it finding
no reversible error in CAs decision.
Issue: WON a motion to discharge an attachment writ is proper once a counterbond
has been filed.
Ruling: The CA did not err in holding that objections to the impropriety or
irregularity of the writ of attachment may no longer be invoked once a counterbond
is filed when the ground for the issuance of the writ forms the core of the complaint.
Indeed, after the defendant has obtained the discharge of the writ by filing a
counterbond under Sec12 Rule 57 he may not file another motion under Sec13, Rule
57 to quash the writ for impropriety or irregularity in issuing it.
The reason is simple. The writ had already been quashed by filing a counterbond
hence another motion would be pointless. As the CA correctly observed, the
question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to the writ can only be determined
after, not before, a full-blown trial on the merits of the case. The merits of a main
action are not triable in a motion to discharge an attachment otherwise an applicant
for the dissolution could force a trial on the merits of the case on his motion. The
liability of the surety on the counterbond subsists until the Court shall have finally
absolved the defendant from the plaintiffs claim. Only then may the counterbond be
released. The same rule applies to plaintiffs attachment bond.