SEC 2.

Issuance and contents of order

(Issuance)
Order of PA may be issued either (how)
1. Ex parte
2. Upon motion with notice and hearing
a. By court where action is pending
b. By CA or SC

Several writs may be issued at the same time
2. To sheriffs of courts of different judicial regions

(Contents of order)
Order of PA must
a. Require sheriff of court to attach so much of the P (PPES)
a. In the Phils.
b. P of the party against whom PA is issued
c. Not exempt from execution
d. As may be sufficient to satisfy the applicants demand
b. Sheriff will not attach, if such party
a. Makes a deposit
b. Gives a bond
3. As provided in R57 S3
4. In the amount equal to that fixed in the order
a. Which may be the amount sufficient to satisfy the applicants demand or
b. Which may be the value of the P to be attached as stated by applicant, exclusive of costs



1. SIEVERT vs. CA, JUDGE LUNA & AURELIO CAMPOSANO
GR No. L-84034 Dec. 22, 1988

FACTS:
In 1988, Sievert (PFF) received by mail a Petition for Issuance of a PA. He did not previously receive any summons
and a copy of the CMP against him.
Sievert objected that the court lacked jurisdiction over his person on the ground that no summons was served upon
him in the main case.
CA ruled against Sievert, saying that DFT may be bound by a WPA even before summons and a copy of the CMP in
the main case has been validly served upon him.

ISSUE:
WON the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the DFT and may bind such DFT or his property in
issuing a WPA?

HELD:
NO.
WPA may be applied for by PFF at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter in R57 S1.
Attachment is an ancillary remedy. A court which has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of DFT, cannot bind
DFT whether in the main case or in any ancillary proceeding such as attachment proceedings.
The service of a petition for PA without the prior or simultaneous service of summons and a copy of the complaint in
the main case, does not confer jurisdiction upon the issuing court over the person of DFT.
Where the petition for a WPA is embodied in a discrete pleading, such petition must be served either
a. Simultaneously with service of summons and a copy of the main complaint, or
b. After jurisdiction over DFT has already been acquired by such service of summons.
Notice of the separate attachment petition is not notice of the main action.
If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of DFT in the principal action, it simply has no
jurisdiction to issue a WPA against DFT or his property.
It is basic that the requirements of the Rules of Court for issuance of preliminary attachment must be strictly and
faithfully complied with in view of the nature of this provisional remedy.
It is the duty of the court, before issuing the WPA, to ensure that all the requisites of the law have been complied with.
Otherwise the judge acts in excess of his jurisdiction and the WPA so issued shall be null and void.
In the case at bar, the want of jurisdiction of the trial court to proceed in the main case against DFT is quite clear.
There was neither service of summons with a copy of the complaint nor voluntary appearance of Sievert.
Hence, the trial court erred in proceeding to hear the petition for issuance of the WPA.



RULE 57 SEC 3. Affidavit and bond required
Order of attachment granted only when
- It appears by the AFF of
1. Applicant or
2. Some other person who personally knows the facts (CRSS)
a. That a sufficient COA exists
b. That the case is 1 of those mentioned in R57 S1
c. That there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action
d. That the ff are as much as the sum for which the order is granted, above all legal CC
o Amount due to the applicant or
o Value of the P, the possession of which he is entitled to recover

The ff must be duly filed with the court before the order issues
1. Affidavit
2. Bond required in R57 S4



1. KO GLASS INC. vs. JUDGE VALENZUELA & ANTONIO PINZON
GR No. L-48756 Sept. 11, 1982

FACTS:
In 1977, Pinzon filed an action to recover from KO Glass, the sum of P37,190 alleged to be the agreed rentals of his
truck and spare parts that remained unreturned upon termination of the lease.
Pinzon asked to attach the properties of KO Glass, consisting of collectibles and payables with the Phil. Geothermal
Inc. The grounds raised for WOA were:
a. That KO Glass is a foreigner
b. That he has sufficient COA against KO Glass
c. That there is no sufficient security for his claim against DFT, in the event judgment is rendered in his favor.
Judge Valenzuela ordered to issue WOA against KO Glass.
KO Glass filed a MTQ the WOA on the grounds that
a. KO Glass Inc. is a duly organized corporation existing under Phil. Laws
b. There is no ground to issue WOA as KO Glass never intended to leave the Phils.
c. The corporation has sufficient funds and properties to satisfy the claims
d. The money garnished belongs to KO Glass Corporation, not to DFT personally.
DFT filed a supplementary motion to discharge the WPA on the ground that the AFF filed in support of the motion for
PA was insufficient, under R57 S3.
a. AFF failed to state that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be recovered
b. AFF did not specify any of the grounds in R57 S1.
DFT filed a bond of P37,190 but Judge Valenzuela did not order the release of the money deposited.

ISSUE:
WON it was proper for Judge Valenzuela to issue the WPA? NO.

HELD:
NO. Judge Valenzuela committed GAD in issuing the WPA.
Failure to allege in the AFF the requisites prescribed for the issuance of a WPA, renders the WPA issued against the
property of DFT fatally defective, and the judge issuing it is deemed to have acted in excess of his jurisdiction.
There was no ground to issue the WPA.
Pinzon did not allege in his AFF that DFT
a. Kenneth O. Glass "is a foreigner who may, at any time, depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his
creditors including the plaintiff." He merely stated that the DFT.
b. DFT is about to depart from the Phils with intent to defraud their creditor, or that they are non-resident aliens
AFF submitted by Pinzon does not comply with the Rules and requirements in R57 S3 as to the contents of the AFF.
While Pinzon may have stated in his affidavit that a sufficient cause of action exists against DFT, he did not state
therein that "the case is one of those mentioned in R57 S1; that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought
to be enforced by the action; and that the amount due to the applicant is as much as the sum for which the order
granted above all legal counter-claims."
KO Glass also filed a counter-bond in the amount of P37,190 to answer for any judgment that may be rendered against
it. Upon receipt of the counter-bond Judge Valenzuela should have discharged the attachment pursuant to R57 S12
The filing of the counter-bond will serve the purpose of preserving the defendant's property and at the same time give
the plaintiff security for any judgment that may be obtained against the defendant.



2. VENTURA GUZMAN vs. ALFREDO CATOLICO & JUDGE RAMOS
GR No. L-45720 Dec. 29, 1937

FACTS:
In 1937, Catolico filed an action against Guzman to recover his attorneys fees, with a prayer to issue WPA against all
properties adjudicated to Guzman in the special proceedings before the CFI of Isabela.
Catolico alleged the grounds to issue WPA that:
a. Guzman is trying to sell and dispose of the properties adjudicated to him, with intention to defraud his creditors
b. Guzman has no other properties outside the same to answer for the fees the court may fix in favor of Catolico.
Judge Ramos ordered the issuance of WPA after Catolico filed a bond.virtual law library
Guzman filed a motion to cancel the WPA on the ground that it had been improperly, irregularly and illegally issued, there
being no allegation, either in the CMP or AFF that
a. There is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action and
b. That the amount due to the plaintiff, above the legal set-off and counterclaim, is as much as the sum of which the PA
has been granted, and
c. That the AFF of the plaintiff is base in mere information and belief.
Judge Ramos ruled in favor of Catolico.

ISSUE:
WON the WPA was properly issued, having complied with all the requisites in R57 S3? NO.

HELD:

NO. The requisites were not fully complied with, rendering the WPA fatally defective.
With respect to the last requisites provided in R57 S3, AFF is not defective because both Catolico and Guzman stated "that
all the allegations thereof are certain and true, to the best of my knowledge and belief", and not that they are so according to
his information and belief.
As to the other two requisites, there is no allegation, either in the CMP or AFF, that
a. There is no other sufficient security for the claim which the PFF seeks to enforce by his action, and
b. That the amount due him from the defendant, above all legal set-offs and counterclaims, is as much as the sum for
which the WPA has been granted.
Such failure to allege or such omissions render a WPA fatally defective.
The law authorizing the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment should be construed strictly in favor of the judge, who
should require that all the requisites prescribed by law be complied with. Otherwise the judge acquires no jurisdiction to
issue WPA.
An affidavit is fatally defective where it fails to comply, at least substantially, with a statutory requirement that is shall state
that the indebtedness for which the action is brought has not been secured by any mortgage or lien upon real or personal
property, or any pledge of personal property, or, if so secured, that the security has become valueless.