Norther Island Co Vs Spouses Garcia
Norther Island Co Vs Spouses Garcia
Norther Island Co Vs Spouses Garcia
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J : p
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2 dated
January 19, 2012 and the Resolution 3 dated August 24, 2012 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 97448, ordering the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 215 (RTC) to appoint a commissioner to determine the value of the attached
properties of respondents Spouses Dennis and Cherylin Garcia (respondents), and to
discharge any excessive attachment found thereby.
The Facts
On September 23, 2005, petitioner Northern Islands Co., Inc. (petitioner) filed
a Complaint 4 with application for a writ of preliminary attachment, before the RTC
against respondents, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-53699 (Main Case), which was
subsequently amended 5 on October 25, 2005. 6 It alleged that: (a) from March to
July 2004, petitioner caused the delivery to respondents of various appliances in the
aggregate amount of P8,040,825.17; 7 (b) the goods were transported, shipped, and
delivered by Sulpicio Lines, Inc., and were accepted in good order and condition by
respondents' representatives; 8 (c) the parties agreed that the goods delivered were
payable within 120 days, and that the unpaid amounts would earn interest at a rate of
eighteen percent (18%) per annum; 9 (d) however, the value of the goods were not
paid by respondents despite repeated demands; 10 and (e) respondents fraudulently
Copyright 1994-2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2017 Third Release 1
asserted that petitioner had no proof that they had indeed received the quantity of the
subject goods. 11
In an Order 17 dated February 28, 2006, the RTC denied the November 11,
2001 Motion, and, instead, directed respondents to file their answer, which the latter
complied with through the filing of their Answer Ad Cautelam Ex Abudante with
Compulsory Counterclaim 18 on April 3, 2006. Despite this, respondents again filed a
Motion for Leave of Court to File Motion for Discovery (Production and Inspection)
19 (Motion for Discovery) on April 7, 2006. 20
In an Order 21 dated June 21, 2006, the RTC, among others, denied the
Motion to Discharge Excess Attachment, finding that the appraisal made by Lapaz
was not reflective of the true valuation of the properties, adding too that the bond
posted by petitioner stands as sufficient security for whatever damages respondents
may sustain by reason of the attachment. 22
On the other hand, the RTC granted the Motion for Discovery in accordance
with Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, despite petitioner's claim that it did not have the
Copyright 1994-2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2017 Third Release 2
originals of the documents being sought. 23
On July 25, 2006, respondents filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the
Order dated June 21, 2006, specifically assailing the denial of their Motion to
Discharge Excess Attachment. In this relation, they prayed that the RTC refer to a
commissioner, pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules of Court, the factual determination of
the total aggregate amount of respondents' attached properties so as to ascertain if the
attachment was excessive. Also, they prayed that the order for production and
inspection be modified and that petitioner be ordered to produce the original
documents anew for their inspection and copying. 25
The foregoing motion was, however, denied by the RTC in an Order 26 dated
August 23, 2006 for lack of merit. Thus, respondents elevated the matter to the CA
via petition for certiorari and mandamus, 27 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97448
(Certiorari Case).
In the interim, the RTC rendered a Decision 28 dated September 21, 2011 in
the Main Case. Essentially, it dismissed petitioner's Amended Complaint due to the
absence of any evidence to prove that respondents had agreed to the pricing of the
subject goods. 29
The RTC's September 21, 2011 Decision was later appealed 30 by petitioner
before the CA on October 27, 2011. Finding that the Notice of Appeal was
seasonably filed, with the payment of the appropriate docket fees, the RTC, in an
Order 31 dated January 25, 2012, ordered the elevation of the entire records of the
Main Case to the CA. The appeal was then raffled to the CA's Eighth Division, and
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 98237. On the other hand, records do not show that
respondents filed any appeal. 32
Meanwhile, the CA, in a Decision 33 dated January 19, 2012, partly granted
the certiorari petition of respondents, ordering the RTC to appoint a commissioner as
provided under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court as well as the subsequent discharge of
any excess attachment if so found therein, and, on the other hand, denying
Copyright 1994-2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2017 Third Release 3
respondents' Motion for Discovery. 34
It held that: (a) on the issue of attachment, trial by commissioners under Rule
32 of the Rules of Court was proper so that the parties may finally settle their
conflicting valuations; 35 and (b) on the matter of discovery, petitioner could not be
compelled to produce the originals sought by respondents for inspection since they
were not in the former's possession. 36
The issues presented for the Court's resolution are: (a) whether the RTC had
lost jurisdiction over the matter of the preliminary attachment after petitioner
appealed the decision in the Main Case, and thereafter ordered the transmittal of the
records to the CA; and (b) whether the CA erred in ordering the appointment of a
commissioner and the subsequent discharge of any excess attachment found by said
commissioner. DScTaC
In this case, petitioner had duly perfected its appeal of the RTC's September
21, 2011 Decision resolving the Main Case through the timely filing of its Notice of
Appeal dated October 27, 2011, together with the payment of the appropriate docket
fees. The RTC, in an Order 39 dated January 25, 2012, had actually confirmed this
fact, and thereby ordered the elevation of the entire records to the CA. Meanwhile,
records do not show that respondents filed any appeal, resulting in the lapse of its
own period to appeal therefrom. Thus, based on Section 9, Rule 41, it cannot be
seriously doubted that the RTC had already lost jurisdiction over the Main Case.
With the RTC's loss of jurisdiction over the Main Case necessarily comes its
loss of jurisdiction over all matters merely ancillary thereto. Thus, the propriety of
Copyright 1994-2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2017 Third Release 4
conducting a trial by commissioners in order to determine the excessiveness of the
subject preliminary attachment, being a mere ancillary matter to the Main Case, is
now mooted by its supervening appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 98237.
Note that in Sps. Olib v. Judge Pastoral, 40 the Court, in view of the nature of
a preliminary attachment, definitively ruled that the attachment itself cannot be the
subject of a separate action independent of the principal action because the attachment
was only an incident of such action, viz.:
That being said, it is now unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised herein.
In fine, the petition is granted and the assailed CA rulings are set aside.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
* "Cherrylyn" and "Cherilyn" in some parts of the rollo.
** Per Special Order No. 1946 dated March 12, 2015.
*** Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 1952 dated March 18, 2015.
Copyright 1994-2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2017 Third Release 5
1. Rollo, pp. 3-23.
2. Id. at 29-47. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices
Noel G. Tijam and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.
3. Id. at 49-50. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices
Noel G. Tijam and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. See Amended Complaint (with Ex Parte Application for Issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Attachment) dated October 17, 2002; rollo, pp. 82-89.
6. Id. at 30.
7. Id. at 83.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 84.
11. Id. at 86.
12. Id. at 30-31.
13. Not attached to the rollo.
14. Rollo, p. 31.
15. Dated January 11, 2006. Id. at 91-102.
16. Id. at 32.
17. Not attached to the rollo.
18. Not attached to the rollo.
19. Not attached to the rollo.
20. Rollo, pp. 8-9 and 32.
21. Id. at 137-139. Penned by Judge Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.
22. Id. at 138.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 33.
25. Id. at 33-34.
26. Id. at 140.
27. Erroneously titled as a petition for review on certiorari dated December 15, 2006. Id.
at 141-174.
28. Id. at 62-76. Penned by Judge Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.
29. Id. at 72.
30. Dated October 24, 2011. Id. at 267-269.
31. Id. at 81 and 271.
32. Id. at 10.
33. Id. at 29-47.
34. Id. at 46.
35. See id. at 41-42.
36. See id. at 45-46.
37. Dated February 6, 2012. Id. at 51-60.
38. Id. at 49-50.
39. See id. at 81 and 271.
Copyright 1994-2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2017 Third Release 6
40. 266 Phil. 762 (1990).
41. Id. at 766-767.
Copyright 1994-2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2017 Third Release 7