Rule 57

Preliminary Attachment
NB: No novel doctrines from set of
cases on Rule 57 from 2013-2014
Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v CA
G.R. No. 93262
November 28, 1991
What the rule is saying quite clearly is
that after an action is properly
commencedby the filing of the
complaint and the payment of all
requisite docket and other feesthe
plaintiff may apply for and obtain a
writ of preliminary attachment upon
fulfillment of the pertinent requisites
laid down by law, and that he may do
so at any time, either before or after
service of summons on the defendant.
Writs of attachment may properly
issue ex parte provided that the Court
is satisfied that the relevant requisites
therefor have been fulfilled by the
applicant, although it may, in its
discretion, require prior hearing on the
application
with
notice
to
the
defendant; but that levy on property
pursuant to the writ thus issued may
not
be
validly
effected
unless
preceded,
or
contemporaneously
accompanied, by service on the
defendant of summons, a copy of the
complaint,
the
application
for
attachment, the order of attachment,
and the plaintiff s attachment bond.
Olib v Pastoral
GR No. 81120
August 20, 1990
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. 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. Thus, 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.
Torres v Satsatin
GR No. 166759
November 25, 2009
The distinction between the issuance
and the implementation of the writ of
attachment is of utmost importance to
the validity of the writ as such would
determine when jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant should be
acquired in order to validly implement
the writ upon his person.
The grant of attachment involves
three stages: (1) the court issues the
order granting the application; (2) the
writ of attachment issues pursuant to
the order granting the writ; and (3) the
writ is implemented. For the initial two
stages, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is not necessary.
However, once the implementation of
the writ commences, the court must
have acquired jurisdiction over the
defendant, otherwise, the court has no
power and authority to act in any
manner against the defendant.
Assuming arguendo that the writ of
attachment
was
validly
issued,
although the trial court later acquired
jurisdiction over the respondents by
service of the summons upon them,

such belated service of summons on

respondents cannot be deemed to
have cured the fatal defect in the
enforcement
of
the
writ.
The
subsequent service of summons does
not confer a retroactive acquisition of
jurisdiction over her person because
the law does not allow it.

Traders Royal Bank v IAC

No. L-66321
October 31, 1984
The remedy of a person who claims to
be an owner of property levied upon
by attachment is to file a third party
claim with the sheriff and if attaching
creditor posts an indemnity bond, to
file a separate and independent
action. This precisely was the remedy
resorted to by private respondent La
Tondea when it filed the vindicatory
action before the Bulacan Court.
Pacis v COMELEC
No. L-29026
August 22, 1969
If the judgment of the appellate court
be favorable to the party against
whom the attachment was issued, he
must claim damages sustained during
the pendency of the appeal by filing
an application with notice to the party
in whose favor the attachment was
issued or his surety or sureties, before
judgment of the appellate court
becomes executory. The appellate
court may allow the application to be
heard and decided by the trial court.
Rule 58
Preliminary Injunction
Solid Builders, Inc v China
Banking Corporation
695 SCRA 103
April 3, 2013

Respondents assert that foreclosure of

their property may cause irreparable
damage, thus justifying the issuance
of the writ of preliminary injunction.
The SC held that foreclosure of
mortgaged
property
is
not
an
irreparable damage that will merit for
the
debtor-mortgagor
the
extraordinary provisional remedy of
preliminary injunction as all is not lost
for defaulting mortgagors whose
properties
were
foreclosed
by
creditors-mortgagees.
The
respondents will not be deprived
outrightly of their property, given the
right of redemption granted to them
under
the
law.
Moreover,
in
extrajudicial foreclosures, mortgagors
have the right to receive any surplus
in the selling price. Thus, if the
mortgagee is retaining more of the
proceeds of the sale than he is entitled
to, this fact alone will not affect the
validity of the sale but will give the
mortgagor a cause of action to recover
such surplus.
Special Audit Team, Commission
on Audit v CA
696 SCRA 166
April 11, 2013
As this Court has previously ruled,
while the existence of the right need
not be conclusively established, it
must be clear. Lacking a clear legal
right, the provisional remedy should
not have been issued, all the more
because the factual support for issuing
the writ had not been established. In
giving injunctive relief, courts cannot
reverse the burden of proof, for to do
so would assume the proposition
which the petitioner is inceptively duty
bound to prove for every case before a
court of law requires a cause of action.
Office of the Ombudsman v De
Chavez

700 SCRA 399

2013
Respondents sought to enjoin the
enforcement of their dismissal from
service. The Court ruled that for a writ
of preliminary injunction to issue, the
following essential requisites must
concur, to wit: (1) that the invasion of
the right is material and substantial;
(2) that the right of complainant is
clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that
there is an urgent and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage. In the present case,
the right of respondents cannot be
said to be clear and unmistakable,
because the prevailing jurisprudence
is that the penalty of dismissal from
the service meted on government
employees or officials is immediately
executory in accordance with the valid
rule of execution pending appeal
uniformly observed in administrative
disciplinary cases.
Hernandez v National Power
Corporation
GR No. 145328
March 23, 2006
For a writ of preliminary injunction to
be issued, the Rules do not require
that the act complained of be in
violation of the rights of the applicant.
What the Rules require is that the act
complained of be probably in violation
of the rights of the applicant. Under
the Rules, probability is enough basis
for injunction to issue as a provisional
remedy, which is different from
injunction as a main action where one
needs to establish absolute certainty
as basis for a final and permanent
injunction.
Sabalones v CA
GR No. 106169
February 14, 1994

The primary purpose of the provisional

remedy of injunction is to preserve the
status quo of the things subject of the
action or the relations between the
parties and thus protect the rights of
the plaintiff respecting these matters
during the pendency of the suit.
Injunction is primarily a preventive
remedy. Its province is to afford relief
against future acts which are against
equity and good conscience and to
keep and preserve the thing in the
status quo, rather than to remedy
what is past or to punish for wrongful
acts already committed. It may issue
to prevent future wrongs although no
right has yet been violated.
Ulang v CA
GR No. 99299
August 26, 1993
An injunction will not issue to protect a
right not in esse and which may never
arise, or to restrain an act which does
not give rise to a cause of action. The
possibility of irreparable damage,
without proof of violation of an actual
existing right, is no ground for an
injunction, being mere
damnum
absque injuria.
Decano v Edu
No. L-30070
August 29, 1980
Where the annulment of the dismissal
of an employee is the cause of action
and mandamus and injunction from
mere corollary remedies thereto, a CFI
of Pangasinan has jurisdiction to issue
writs of mandamus and injunction
against an officer of the Land
Transportation Commission even if the
latter holds office in Quezon City.
Verzosa v CA
GR Nos. 119511-13
November 24, 1998

Where the acts have been performed

prior to the filing of the injunction suit,
the general rule is that consummated
acts can no longer be restrained by
injunction. However, where the acts
are performed after the injunction suit
is brought, a defendant may not as a
matter of right proceed to perform the
acts sought to be restrained and then
be heard to assert in the suit that the
injunction will not lie because he has
performed these acts before final
hearing has been had, but after the
beginning of the action. A defendant
thus acts at his peril.
Tay Chun Suy v CA
GR No. 93640
January 7, 1994
The general rule that no court has the
power to interfere by injunction with
the judgments or decrees of another
court with concurrent or coordinate
jurisdiction possessing equal power to

grant injunctive relief, applies only

when no third-[arty claimant is
involved. When a third party, or a
stranger to the action, asserts a claim
over the property levied upon, the
claimant may vindicate his claim by an
independent action in the proper civil
court which may stop the execution of
the
judgment
on
property
not
belonging to the judgment debtor.
Federation of Land Reform
Farmers of the Philippines v CA
GR No. 88384
July 14, 1995
Ordinarily, the efficacy of a temporary
restraining order is non-extendible and
the courts have no discretion to
extend the same considering the
mandatory tenor of the Rule. However,
there is no reason to prevent a court
from extending the 20-day period
when the parties themselves ask for
such extension or for the maintenance
of the status quo.