FIRST DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 167741

MAJ. GEN. CARLOS FLORES

xx

DECISION
CORONA, J.:

[1] [2]
This petition for certiorari assails the January 14, 2005 and March 2, 2005 resolutions of the
Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0193 entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Maj. Gen.
Carlos Flores Garcia, Clarita Depakakibo Garcia, Ian Carl Depakakibo Garcia, Juan Paulo Depakakibo Garcia
and Timothy Mark Depakakibo Garcia.

Civil Case No. 0193 was a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties, with a verified urgent ex
parte application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, filed by the Republic of the Philippines
[3] [4]
against Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, his wife and children in the Sandiganbayan on October 27, 2004. In
praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, the Republic maintained that, as a sovereign
political entity, it was exempt from filing the required attachment bond.

On October 29, 2004, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution ordering the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment against the properties of the Garcias upon the filing by the Republic of a P1 million attachment
[5]
bond. On November 2, 2004, the Republic posted the required attachment bond to avoid any delay in the
issuance of the writ as well as to promptly protect and secure its claim.

On December 7, 2004, the Republic filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the October 29, 2004
resolution claiming that it was exempt from filing an attachment bond and praying for the release thereof.

In a resolution dated January 14, 2005, the Sandiganbayan ruled that there was nothing in the Rules of
[6]
Court that exempted the Republic from filing an attachment bond. It reexamined Tolentino v. Carlos which
was invoked by the Republic to justify its claimed exemption. That case was decided under the old Code of
Civil Procedure enacted more than a century ago.

The Sandiganbayan denied the Republics motion. Reconsideration was also denied in a resolution dated
March 2, 2005.

As already stated, these two resolutions (January 14, 2005 and March 2, 2005) are the subject of the present
petition.

Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion when it rejected the Republics claim of
exemption from the filing of an attachment bond? Yes.

Sections 3 and 4, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provide:

Sec.3.Affidavitandbondrequired.Anorderofattachmentshallbegrantedonlywhenitappearsbytheaffidavitofthe
applicant,orofsomeotherpersonwhopersonallyknowsthefacts,thatasufficientcauseofactionexists,thatthecaseisoneof
thosementionedinsection1hereof,thatthereisnoothersufficientsecurityfortheclaimsoughttobeenforcedbytheaction,
andthattheamountduetoapplicant,orthevalueofthepropertythepossessionofwhichheisentitledtorecover,isasmuchas
the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims. The affidavit, and the bond required by the next
succeedingsection,mustbedulyfiledwiththecourtbeforetheorderissues.

Sec.4.Conditionofapplicantsbond.Thepartyapplyingfortheordermustthereaftergiveabondexecutedtotheadverse
partyintheamountfixedbythecourtinitsordergrantingtheissuanceofthewrit,conditionedthatthelatterwillpayall
thecostswhichmaybeadjudgedtotheadversepartyandalldamageswhichhemaysustainbyreasonoftheattachment,ifthe
courtshallfinallyadjudgethattheapplicantwasnotentitledthereto.(emphasissupplied)


Under these provisions, before a writ of attachment may issue, a bond must first be filed to answer for all
costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and for the damages he may sustain by reason of the
[7]
attachment. However, this rule does not cover the State. In Tolentino, this Court declared that the State as
represented by the government is exempt from filing an attachment bond on the theory that it is always
solvent.

2.Section427oftheCodeofCivilProcedureprovidesthatbeforetheissuanceofawritofattachment,theapplicanttherefor
or any person in his name, should file a bond in favor of the defendant for an amount not less than P400 nor more than the
amountoftheclaim,answerablefordamagesincaseitisshownthattheattachmentwasobtainedillegallyorwithoutsufficient
cause but in the case at bar the one who applied for and obtained the attachment is the Commonwealth of the
Philippines, as plaintiff, and under the theory that the State is always solvent it was not bound to post the required
[8]
bond and the respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction in exempting it from such requirement. x x x (emphasis
supplied)

In other words, the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment is conditioned on the filing of a bond unless
[9]
the applicant is the State. Where the State is the applicant, the filing of the attachment bond is excused.

 The attachment bond is contingent on and answerable for all costs which may be adjudged to the
adverse party and all damages which he may sustain by reason of the attachment should the court finally rule
that the applicant is not entitled to the writ of attachment. Thus, it is a security for the payment of the costs
and damages to which the adverse party may be entitled in case there is a subsequent finding that the
applicant is not entitled to the writ. The Republic of the Philippines need not give this security as it is
presumed to be always solvent and able to meet its obligations.

The Sandiganbayan thus erred when it disregarded the foregoing presumption and instead ruled that the
Republic should file an attachment bond. The error was not simply an error of judgment but grave abuse of
discretion.

There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is done contrary to the Constitution, the law or
[10]
jurisprudence. Here, the Sandiganbayans January 14, 2005 resolution was clearly contrary to Tolentino.

Worse, the Sandiganbayan transgressed the Constitution and arrogated upon itself a power that it did
not by law possess. All courts must take their bearings from the decisions and rulings of this Court. Tolentino
has not been superseded or reversed. Thus, it is existing jurisprudence and continues to form an important
[11]
part of our legal system. Surprisingly, the Sandiganbayan declared that Tolentino need(ed) to be carefully
[12]
reexamined in the light of the changes that the rule on attachment ha(d) undergone through the years.
According to the court a quo:

[Tolentino] was decided by the Supreme Court employing the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) which was
enactedbythePhilippineCommissiononAugust7,1901ormorethanacenturyago.

That was then, this is now. The provisions of the old Code of Civil Procedure governing attachment have been
substantially modified in the subsequent Rules of Court. In fact, Rule 57 of the present 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is an
expandedmodificationoftheprovisionsoftheoldCodeofCivilProceduregoverningattachment.UnliketheoldCodeofCivil
Procedure,thepresent1997RulesofCivilProcedureisnoticeablyexplicitinitsrequirementthatthepartyapplyingforanorder
ofattachmentshouldfileabond.

On this, Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution provides:

(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of majority of the Members who
actuallytookpartinthedeliberationsontheissuesinthecaseandvotedthereon,andinnocasewithouttheconcurrenceofat
leastthreeofsuchMembers.Whentherequirednumberisnotobtained,thecaseshallbedecidedenbancProvided,thatno
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered enbanc or in division may be modified or
reversedexceptbythecourtsittingenbanc.(emphasissupplied)

The Constitution mandates that only this Court sitting en banc may modify or reverse a doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division. Any court, the
Sandiganbayan included, which renders a decision in violation of this constitutional precept exceeds its
jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Sandiganbayan could not have validly reexamined, much less reversed, Tolentino. By doing
something it could not validly do, the Sandiganbayan acted ultra vires and committed grave abuse of
discretion.

The fact was, the revisions of the Rules of Court on attachment, particularly those pertaining to the filing
of an attachment bond, did not quash Tolentino.

Tolentino applied Sec. 247 of Act No. 190 which provided:

Sec.247.Obligationfordamagesincaseofattachment.Beforetheorderismade,thepartyapplyingforit,orsome
persononhisbehalf,mustexecutetothedefendantanobligationinanamounttobefixedbythejudge,orjusticeofthe
peace,andwithsufficientsuretytobeapprovedbyhim,whichobligationshallbeforasumnotlessthantwohundreddollars,
and not exceeding the amount claimed by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the
defendant,andalldamageswhichhemaysustainbyreasonoftheattachment,ifthesameshallfinallybeadjudgedtohave
beenwrongfulorwithoutsufficientcause.(emphasissupplied)

Contrary to the pronouncement of the Sandiganbayan, Section 247 of Act No. 190 explicitly required the
execution of an attachment bond before a writ of preliminary attachment could be issued.

[13]
The relevant provisions of Act No. 190 on attachment were later substantially adopted as Sections 3
and 4, Rule 59 of the 1940 Rules of Court.
Sec.3.Orderissuedonlywhenaffidavitandbondfiled.Anorderofattachmentshallbegrantedonlywhenitismadeto
appear by the affidavit of the plaintiff, or of some other person who personally knows the facts, that the case is one of those
mentionedinsection1hereof,thatthereisnoothersufficientsecurityfortheclaimsoughttobeenforcedbytheaction,andthat
theamountduetotheplaintiff,orthevalueofthepropertywhichheisentitledtorecoverpossessionof,isasmuchasthesum
forwhichtheorderisgrantedabovealllegalcounterclaimswhichaffidavit,andthe bond required by the next succeeding
section,mustbedulyfiledwiththeclerkorjudgeofthecourtbeforetheorderissues.(emphasissupplied)

Sec.4.Bondrequiredfromplaintiff.Thepartyapplyingfortheordermustgiveabondexecutedtothedefendantinan
amounttobefixedbythejudge,notexceedingtheplaintiffsclaim,thattheplaintiffwillpayallthecostswhichmaybeadjudged
tothedefendantandalldamageswhichhemaysustainbyreasonoftheattachment,ifthecourtshallfinallyadjudgethatthe
plaintiffwasnotentitledthereto.

And with the promulgation of the 1964 Rules of Court, the rules on attachment were renumbered as Rule
57, remaining substantially the same:
Sec.3.Affidavitandbondrequired.Anorderofattachmentshallbegrantedonlywhenitappearsbytheaffidavitofthe
applicant,orofsomeotherpersonwhopersonallyknowsthefacts,thatasufficientcauseofactionexists,thatthecaseisoneof
thosementionedinsection1hereof,thatthereisnoothersufficientsecurityfortheclaimsoughttobeenforcedbytheaction,
andthattheamountduetoapplicant,orthevalueofthepropertythepossessionofwhichheisentitledtorecover,isasmuchas
the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims. The affidavit, and the bond required by the next
succeedingsection,mustbedulyfiledwiththeclerkorjudgeofthecourtbeforetheorderissues.(emphasissupplied)

Sec. 4. Condition of applicants bond. The party applying for the order must thereafter give a bond executed to the
adversepartyinanamounttobefixedbythejudge,notexceedingtheapplicantsclaim,conditionedthatthelatterwillpayallthe
costswhichmaybeadjudgedtotheadversepartyandalldamageswhichhemaysustainbyreasonoftheattachment,ifthe
courtshallfinallyadjudgethattheapplicantwasnotentitledthereto.
Clearly, the filing of an attachment bond before the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment was expressly
required under the relevant provisions of both the 1940 and 1964 Rules of Court.

Commentaries on Sections 3 and 4 of the 1964 Rules of Court uniformly cited Tolentino. They stated that the
[14]
government is exempt from filing an attachment bond and that the State need not file an attachment bond.
[15]
 Where the Republic of the Philippines as a party to an action asks for a writ of attachment against the properties of a
[16]
defendant,itneednotfurnishabond.ThisissobecausetheStateispresumedtobesolvent.

WhenplaintiffistheRepublicofthePhilippines,itneednotfileabondwhenitappliesforapreliminaryattachment.Thisis
[17]
onthepremisethattheStateissolvent.
And then again, we note the significant fact that Sections 3 and 4, Rule 57 of the 1964 Rules of Court were
[18]
substantially incorporated as Sections 3 and 4, Rule 57 of the present (1997) Rules of Court. There is thus
no reason why the Republic should be made to file an attachment bond.

[19]
In fact, in Spouses Badillo v. Hon. Tayag, a fairly recent case, this Court declared that, when the State
litigates, it is not required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond because it is presumed to be
solvent. In other words, the State is not required to file a bond because it is capable of paying its obligations.
[20]

The pronouncement in Spouses Badillo applies in this case even if Spouses Badillo involved the filing of a
supersedeas bond. The pronouncement that the State is not required to put up a bond for damages or even an
appeal bond is general enough to encompass attachment bonds. Moreover, the purpose of an attachment bond
(to answer for all costs and damages which the adverse party may sustain by reason of the attachment if the
court finally rules that the applicant is not entitled to the writ) and a supersedeas bond (to answer for
damages to the winning party in case the appeal is found frivolous) is essentially the same.
In filing forfeiture cases against erring public officials and employees, the Office of the Ombudsman
performs the States sovereign functions of enforcing laws, guarding and protecting the integrity of the public
service and addressing the problem of corruption in the bureaucracy.
The filing of an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment is a necessary incident in
forfeiture cases. It is needed to protect the interest of the government and to prevent the removal, concealment
and disposition of properties in the hands of unscrupulous public officers. Otherwise, even if the government
subsequently wins the case, it will be left holding an empty bag.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The January 14, 2005 and March 2, 2005 resolutions of
the Sandiganbayan are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Republic of the Philippines is declared exempt from
the payment or filing of an attachment bond for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment issued in
Civil Case No. 0193. The Sandiganbayan is hereby ordered to release the P1,000,000 bond posted by the
Republic of the Philippines to the Office of the Ombudsman.

SO ORDERED.

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:


REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson

(On leave)
ANGELINA SANDOVALGUTIERREZ ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

*Onleave.
[1]
UnderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
[2]
BothresolutionswerepennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseR.HernandezwithAssociateJusticesGregoryS.OngandRodolfoA.Ponferradaconcurring.Rollo,pp.2538,3950.
[3]
RespondentClaritaD.Garcia.
[4]
RespondentsIanCarlD.Garcia,JuanPauloD.GarciaandTimothyMarkD.Garcia.
[5]
Rollo,pp.100104.
[6]
66Phil.140(1938).
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Martin,Ruperto,RULESOFCOURTINTHEPHILIPPINES,volume3,1969SecondEdition,PhilippineGraphicArtsPublicationsCompany,p.17Moran,Manuel,COMMENTSON
THERULESOFCOURT,volumeIII,1997Edition,RexBookstore,p.27.
[10]
InformationTechnologyFoundationofthePhilippinesv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.159139,13January2004,419SCRA141.
[11]
SeeArticle8,CIVILCODE.
[12]
Emphasissupplied.
[13]
TheprovisionrequiringtheaffidavitwasformerlySection246ofActNo.190.
Sec.246.Grantingorderofattachment.Ajudgeorjusticeofthepeaceshallgrantanorderofattachmentwhenitismadetoappeartothejudgeorjusticeofthepeacebytheaffidavitofthe
plaintiff,orofsomeotherpersonwhoknowsthefactsthatasufficientcauseofactionexists,andthatthecaseisoneofthosementionedinsectionfourhundredandtwentyfour,
andthatthereisnoothersufficientsecurityfortheclaimsoughttobeenforcedbytheaction,andthattheamountduetotheplaintiffabovealllegalsetoffsorcounterclaimsisas
muchasthesumforwhichtheorderisgranted.
[14]
Laureta,Wenceslao,COMMENTARIESANDJURISPRUDENCEONATTACHMENTANDEXECUTION,1972FirstEdition,NationalBookstore,p.64.
[15]
Martin,Ruperto,supra.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Moran,Manuel,supra.
[18]
TherewasnochangeinSection3exceptstylebydeletingthewordstheclerkorjudgeoffromthelastsentence.TheonlychangeinSection4was,insteadoftheamountofthebondto
befixedbythejudge,notexceedingtheapplicantsclaim,thepresentruleleavestheamounttobefixedbythecourtinitsorderwithoutanylimitation.(Herrera,Oscar,Remedial
Law[VolumeVII]:COMMENTSONTHE1997RULESOFCIVILPROCEDUREASAMENDED,1997Edition,RexBookstore,pp.602603.)
[19]
448Phil.606(2003).
[20]
Id.