PEROXIDE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, EASTMAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., EDMUNDO O. MAPUA and ROSE U.

MAPUA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE, ISLANDS, respondents.
Facts:
BPI filed an action for sum of money against Peroxide, Eastman, and Mapuas (Eastman and Mapuas bound themselves to solidarily liable for
Peroxides indebtedness)
Judge Pineda ordered the issuance of writ of preliminary attachment after BPI filed an attachment bond. The properties of the petitioners were
attached by the sheriff.
Eastman and the Mapuas moved to lift the attachment, which motion was set for hearing and BPI was ordered to file its written opposition. BPI
filed the a motion to set for hearing for the motion to lift attachment and its opposition.
Judge Pineda denied motion for hearing and granted the lifting of the writ of attachment. BPI filed MFR but, consequent to the then judiciary
reorganization, the case was re-raffled and assigned to the sala of Judge Reyes.
Judge Reyes ruled that writ of attachment was proper on the ground Eastman and Mapuas disposed of their properties in fraud of BPI. It also
directed the sheriff to implement the writ of attachment upon the finality of said order.
After more than one year, BPI moved for partial reconsideration, the court writ of attachment was revived and re-affirmed and may be executed
and implemented immediately. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with CA. CA dismissed the petition.
Peroxide et al filed a petition for certiorari with SC. Meantime, RTC issued an order suspending the writ of preliminary attachment pursuant to
the an ex-parte motion filed by Peroxide et al.
SC denied the petition for review declaring the writ of preliminary attachment valid. Peroxide et al filed MFR but denied.
BPI filed a motion for the implementation of the writ with RTC to deliver the cash dividends declared by Bataan Pulp and Paper Mills, Inc
(Bataan) [with respect to garnished shares] and to declare the officers of Bataan in contempt for the disregard of the notice of the garnishment.
RTC granted. Peroxide et al filed MFR but denied. Peroxide et al filed 2nd MFR.
RTC granted and ruled that the officers cannot be declared in contempt because there was no order or writ violated by Bataans officers since
the writ of attachment was suspended.
BPI filed a petition for certiorari with CA. CA ruled that the writ of attachment is valid and enforceable from the beginning.
Issue:
W/N the writ of attachment was validly lifted and suspended
Ruling:
Applicable law
Rule 57, Sec.13
Section 13. Discharge of attachment on other grounds. The party whose property has been ordered attached may file a motion with the
court in which he action is pending, before or after levy or even after the release of the attached property, for an order to set aside or discharge
the attachment on the ground that the same was improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient. If the attachment is
excessive, the discharge shall be limited to the excess. If the motion be made on affidavits on the part of the movant but not otherwise, the
attaching party may oppose the motion by counter-affidavits or other evidence in addition to that on which the attachment was made. After due
notice and hearing, the court shall order the setting aside or the corresponding discharge of the attachment if it appears that it was improperly
or irregularly issued or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient, or that the attachment is excessive, and the defect is not cured forthwith.
>When the attachment is challenged for having been illegally or improperly issued, there must be a hearing with the burden of proof to sustain
the writ being on the attaching creditor. That hearing includes not only the right to present evidence but also a reasonable opportunity to know
the claims of the opposing parties and meet them.
>The attachment of the properties of Eastman and the Mapuas remained valid from its issuance since the judgment had not been satisfied, nor
has the writ been validly discharged either by the filing of a counterbond or for improper or irregular issuance.
>The lifting of the said writ without notice and hearing in disregard of Section 13 of Rule 57, could not have resulted in the discharge of the
attachment.
>the ex parte discharge or suspension of the attachment is a disservice to the orderly administration of justice and nullifies the underlying role
and purpose of preliminary attachment in preserving the rights of the parties pendente lite as an ancillary remedy.
>The writ of attachment is continuing and uninterruptedly valid and enforceable since the order of discharge and, later, the order of suspension
of the trial court were void The cancellation of the annotations regarding the levy on attachment of petitioners' properties, procured by the
sheriff pursuant to the aforesaid invalid orders, is likewise a nullity and another levy thereon is not required.

>The proceeding in the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, as a mere provisional remedy, is ancillary to an action commenced at or
before the time when the attachment is sued out. Accordingly the attachment does not affect the decision of the case on the merits, the right to
recover judgment on the alleged indebtedness and the right to attach the property of the debtor being entirely separate and distinct. As a rule,
the judgment in the main action neither changes the nature nor determines the validity of the attachment.