Carpio vs. Macadaeg G.R. No. L-17797 | November 29, 1963 Petitioner: Isabelo Carpio Respondent: Hon.

Higinio Macadaeg, as presiding Judge of Branch X, CFI Manila; Oscar Abaya; Provincial Sheriff of Rizal and City Sheriff of Manila Nature of the Case: Petition for certiorari and prohibition to stop implementation of Macadaegs orders directing the sale of five race horses and goods previously attached upon motion of Abaya (Note: A writ of preliminary injunction against sale was issued by the SC, even ordered the Sheriff to train the horses and participate in races) Summary: Very simple case. Abaya filed a complaint for recovery of money against Carpio amounting to 25k. He also requested for an attachment of the properties of Carpio, specifically racehorses and imported hardware. After several flipflops, the Judge finally granted the attachment and authorized the sale of the goods. Carpio countered, saying that there was no allegation that he was defrauding his creditors, so the attachment must fail. The Judge corrected himself, and reversed the attachment. This time, Abaya alleged intent to defraud, so the Judge again granted attachment. The Supreme Court said that the Judge cannot order the attachment based on such allegation. Carpio must be afforded the opportunity to show that he has been disposing property without intent to defraud. Moreover, Abaya was not able to submit an affidavit required by the Rules of Court, hence, the writ of attachment must fail. Makalintal, J.: Facts On January 17, 1960, Abaya filed a complaint against petitioner for recovery of money amounting to P25,000. Before summons was served, and upon motion of Abaya, the Judge ordered the attachment wherein the Sheriff of Manila garnished goods consisting of Carpios imported hardware , and the Sheriff of Rizal seized Carpios five racing horces (named Mohamad, Mohamads Pride, Magic Spell, Nashua, and Sirius). Hence, Carpio filed an urgent petition to discharge such orders of attachment. Judge granted Carpios petition and set aside his order. Abaya counters, filed a motion, and the Judge granted this (on March 29, 1960) and set aside the previous order. Though no new petition was filed for issuance of a writ of attachment and no new order or alias writ of attachment was issued, respondent Sheriff of Manila garnished the aforementioned goods and respondent Sheriff of Rizal attached the five racing horses. Upon petition of Abaya, the Judge directed the sale at public auction of the horses. This was halted as Carpio put up a bond of 4,000, The horses were then released. Upon motion again of Abaya, an increase of bond to 10,000 was ordered. No payment was made and MRs made by Carpio against it were denied. Hence, the sale of the garnished goods was again authorized. Carpio now seeks the annulment of the increase of the bond and the denial of his MRs, as well as the order authorizing the sale of the goods, on the ground of GADALEJ on part of the judge. The Judge committed an error in issuing such order because: (Note: Aralin nyo rin to. Ang labo ng pagkakasulat sa full text, di ako sure kung contention lang to ni Carpio or opinion na ng Supreme Court. But this is important) o Judge should not have issued the two writs of preliminary attachment on Abaya's simple allegation that the petitioner was about to dispose of his property, thereby leaving no security for the satisfaction of any judgment. o Mere removal or disposal of property, by itself, is not ground for issuance of preliminary attachment, notwithstanding absence of any security for the satisfaction of any

judgment against the defendant. The removal or disposal, to justify preliminary attachment, must have been made with intent to defraud defendant's creditors. (Note: Eto yung mali ni Abaya, no allegation of intent to defraud) The Judge corrected himself and set aside the orders of attachment. However, he reversed again. He did this because apparently Abaya (realizing his error) contended this time that Carpio was about to remove or dispose of his property in order to defraud his creditors. Moreover, Abaya never made an affidavit as required by the Rules of Court. (provision reproduced in the Ratio)

Issue/Held: Whether or not the order of the Judge was void because it is (1) based solely on the allegation of Abaya that Carpio intended to defraud his creditors and (2) no affidavit was made as required by the ROC YES. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the order of March 29, 1960 and all succeeding orders of respondent Judge with respect to said preliminary attachment, are hereby declared null and void; the attached properties are ordered released; and the preliminary injunction issued by this Court is made permanent. Costs against respondent Abaya. Ratio: Based solely on the allegation issue Respondent Judge, before issuing the preliminary attachment anew, should have given the parties opportunity to prove their respective claims or, at the very least, should have provided petitioner with the chance to show that he had not been disposing of his property in fraud of creditors. Affidavit issue The Judge should not have again ordered the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment since Abaya never made any affidavit as required by Rule 59, Rules of Court, which states that: o SEC. 3. Order issued only when affidavit and bond filed An order of attachment shall be granted when it is made to appear by the affidavit of the plaintiff, or of some other person who personally knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of action exists, that the case is one of those mentioned in section 1 hereof, that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and that the amount due to the plaintiff, or the value of the property which he is entitled to recover the possession of, is as much as the sum for which the order is granted above all legal counterclaims; which affidavit, and the bond required by the next succeeding section, must be duly filed with the clerk or judge of the court before the order issues. For the purposes of issuance of preliminary attachment, the affidavit attached to Abaya's motion is not sufficient, and it does not appear that he ever executed another affidavit that complies with the above section. Hence, the order of attachment of the Judge is not based on any affidavit as required by the rules.