Grounds for dissolution

Grounds for dissolution | Preliminary Attachment (RULE 57) | PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Below is a focused, meticulous discussion on the grounds for dissolution (or discharge) of a writ of preliminary attachment under Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in the Philippines, including relevant principles, procedural pointers, and jurisprudential notes. Although the emphasis is on grounds for dissolution, it is helpful to situate these grounds in the broader context of how preliminary attachments operate under Philippine law.

1. Preliminary Attachment in Brief

  1. Nature and Purpose

    • A preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy that plaintiff(s) may seek at the commencement of an action—or at any time thereafter before final judgment—to secure the outcome of a favorable judgment by seizing property of the defendant.
    • It is designed to protect the creditor (plaintiff) from the risk that the defendant might dispose of, conceal, or remove property to frustrate satisfaction of a prospective judgment.

  2. When Availed Of

    • Under Section 1, Rule 57, a writ of preliminary attachment may issue on any of the grounds enumerated (e.g., when the defendant is about to depart from the Philippines, has removed or disposed of property to defraud creditors, is guilty of fraud in contracting the obligation sued upon, etc.).

  3. Requisites for Issuance

    • Affidavit of the applicant showing that a ground for attachment exists.
    • Bond executed in favor of the adverse party, in an amount fixed by the court, to cover damages in case the court later finds that the attachment was improper or wrongful.

2. General Rule on Dissolution or Discharge

  • The party whose property has been attached can move to discharge or dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment on several grounds, either because the attachment should never have been issued or because the defendant is willing to post a counter-bond (among other scenarios).
  • These grounds largely appear in Sections 12, 13, and 19 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.

3. Grounds for Dissolution of Preliminary Attachment

A. Improper or Irregular Issuance of the Writ

  1. Absence of Factual or Legal Basis

    • A key ground is that the writ was improperly or irregularly issued, meaning that the allegations in the application and supporting affidavit do not actually establish any of the specific grounds for attachment under Section 1, Rule 57.
    • The court will look into whether the facts alleged truly warrant the extraordinary remedy of attachment. If the allegations are insufficient or if the supposed ground is not supported by facts, the attachment can be dissolved.

  2. Defective or Insufficient Affidavit

    • Rule 57 specifically requires that the affidavit must positively show that a ground for attachment exists, and that there is no other sufficient security for the claim. If the affidavit is riddled with inaccuracies or it fails to make out a valid ground (e.g., it merely states conclusions without supporting facts), the writ is deemed improperly issued.

  3. Bond Issues

    • If the plaintiff’s attachment bond is insufficient or defective—e.g., it was not executed in the correct amount, or it failed to strictly follow legal formalities—the court may dissolve the attachment on that basis.
    • Insolvency of the surety or the sureties backing the bond also qualifies. If the surety cannot be relied upon to pay damages in case the attachment is found wrongful, the attachment can be set aside.

  4. Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements

    • Courts have recognized that a writ of preliminary attachment may also be subject to discharge if there was a failure to comply with mandatory procedural steps—such as issuing the writ without affording the defendant an opportunity to show cause, or effecting the attachment in a manner contrary to the rules (e.g., blatant irregularities in the manner of levy).
    • While not all procedural missteps automatically lead to dissolution, substantial or material irregularities—like levying on properties exempt from execution—can be invoked as grounds.

B. Posting a Counter-Bond

  1. Section 12, Rule 57 (Dissolution Upon Counter-Bond)
    • Even if the writ of attachment was validly issued, the defendant may still cause its dissolution by posting a counter-bond in an amount equal to the plaintiff’s claim—or as fixed by the court—to secure the payment of any judgment that the plaintiff may recover.
    • Once the court is satisfied that the counter-bond is in the proper amount and is secured by solvent sureties, the court must discharge the attachment.
    • This is a common, straightforward way to lift the attachment without debating the validity of the grounds alleged by the plaintiff. The law emphasizes the protective nature of the bond: so long as the plaintiff’s interests are adequately secured, the extraordinary remedy becomes unnecessary.

C. Property is Exempt from Execution

  1. Exemptions
    • Some properties, by their nature or by statutory grant, are exempt from execution (and thus from attachment). Examples include certain personal properties considered necessary for the defendant’s livelihood, portions of salaries, etc.
    • If the defendant can show the seized property falls under a statutory exemption, the writ as to that property will be discharged.

D. Other Potential Grounds

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction

    • If the court that issued the writ does not have jurisdiction over the action or over the subject matter of the complaint, the attachment is void. Once the court’s lack of jurisdiction is established, any provisional remedies it issued are subject to being set aside.

  2. No Right of Action

    • Relatedly, if the plaintiff has no cause of action to begin with (e.g., the complaint fails to state a cause of action), the attachment should not stand. A successful motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action can moot or lead to the discharge of the writ.

4. Procedure to Dissolve or Discharge the Writ

  1. Filing a Motion to Discharge

    • The defendant (or a third person claiming a right to the property) must file a motion in court, setting forth the grounds why the attachment should be lifted. This motion can be filed at any time before or after levy, but prior to the entry of judgment.

  2. Notice and Hearing

    • The Rules require that there be notice to the plaintiff and that a hearing be conducted. During the hearing, the defendant must show cause why the attachment should be discharged—whether by challenging the grounds, the affidavit, the bond, or by offering a counter-bond.

  3. Proving Irregularities or Improprieties

    • Where the dissolution is sought on the ground of improper or irregular issuance, the burden of proof usually rests on the movant-defendant to demonstrate that the affidavits were insufficient or that no valid ground for attachment exists.

  4. Opposition by the Plaintiff

    • The plaintiff (who obtained the writ) may present evidence justifying the issuance of the writ—showing that the grounds were validly stated and the bond was adequate. If the court finds the issuance was regular and justified, or that no defect or irregularity exists, the attachment stands.
    • However, if the defendant posts a sufficient counter-bond, the court is generally required to discharge the attachment, regardless of whether the attachment was initially proper or not.

  5. Discharge in Whole or in Part

    • The court can order partial dissolution of the attachment when the grounds for dissolution affect only a portion of the attached property, or if the counter-bond is sufficient to cover only part of the plaintiff’s claim.
    • For instance, if one specific item of property was improperly attached because it is exempt from execution, only that item is freed while the attachment continues over the rest.

5. Effects of Dissolution of the Attachment

  1. Restoration of Possession

    • When an attachment is discharged, any property already seized must be released and restored to the defendant (unless the property was also subject to other valid attachments or encumbrances).

  2. Reinstatement in Exceptional Cases

    • If the order of dissolution was secured by a misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the defendant, or if the defendant’s counter-bond is later discovered to be defective or insufficient, the plaintiff may move to reinstate the attachment or to require the defendant to file a new counter-bond.

  3. Claims for Damages

    • If the attachment is determined to have been wrongfully, oppressively, or maliciously obtained, the defendant may claim damages against the plaintiff’s attachment bond. The dissolution itself can be a precursor to a separate hearing or proceeding on damages for wrongful attachment.

6. Jurisprudential Highlights

  1. Strict Compliance with Rules

    • Courts have repeatedly emphasized that preliminary attachment is a harsh, extraordinary remedy. Thus, strict compliance with the requirements under Rule 57 is imperative.
    • The slightest material defect in the affidavit or the bond can justify dissolution (see, e.g., Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. CA; Mabayo Farms, Inc. v. CA).

  2. Existence of Fraud Must Be Clearly Alleged

    • In cases where fraud is invoked as a ground for attachment, courts have stressed that general averments of fraud do not suffice. The law demands specificity, otherwise the attachment stands on weak ground and is prone to dissolution.

  3. Preference for Counter-Bond

    • The Supreme Court encourages the use of a counter-bond in many decisions, as it balances the defendant’s property rights with the plaintiff’s right to secure its claim. Once the defendant posts an adequate counter-bond, dissolution almost automatically follows.

7. Practical Tips and Reminders

  • For Defendants Seeking Dissolution:

    1. Attack the affidavit supporting the attachment. Show that it does not establish any of the enumerated grounds in Section 1, Rule 57.
    2. Check the bond. If the surety is insolvent or if the bond is insufficient, highlight these deficiencies.
    3. Consider a counter-bond. If immediate lifting of the attachment is desired and you are confident in defending the case on the merits, posting a counter-bond often provides the fastest route to dissolution.
    4. Assert exemptions. Identify any attached property that is exempt from execution and raise it in your motion to discharge.

  • For Plaintiffs Opposing Dissolution:

    1. Prepare to prove the factual basis for each ground alleged in your affidavit.
    2. Ensure the attachment bond is valid, with a reputable and solvent surety or sureties.
    3. Maintain specificity in alleging fraud or any other special ground. Vague accusations rarely survive judicial scrutiny.

8. Summary of Grounds and Key Takeaway

Under Rule 57, the main grounds for the dissolution or discharge of a writ of preliminary attachment are:

  1. The attachment was improperly or irregularly issued (no valid cause under Section 1, or affidavit is defective, or bond is inadequate).
  2. The property attached is exempt from execution.
  3. The defendant posts a counter-bond sufficient to secure the claimant’s demand.
  4. The surety or sureties on the plaintiff’s bond become insolvent or otherwise disqualified.
  5. There was a substantive or jurisdictional defect (e.g., no cause of action, lack of jurisdiction, fundamental procedural irregularities).

Ultimately, preliminary attachment aims to preserve the status quo while a case is ongoing, but it is never meant to oppress or unduly restrain the defendant. The law provides clear pathways to dissolve the attachment if there is an abuse or if the defendant is willing and able to furnish adequate security. Mastery of these procedural steps ensures fair and proper application of this potent provisional remedy.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login