DAVAO LIGHT VS.

CA

Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (hereafter, simply Davao Light) filed a verified complaint for recovery of a sum of
money and damages against Queensland Hotel, etc. and Teodorico Adarna (docketed as Civil Case No. 19513-89).
The complaint contained an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment.

Judge Nartatez, to whose branch the case was assigned by raffle, issued an Order granting the ex parte application
and fixing the attachment bond at P4,600,513.37.

Thereafter, the attachment bond having been submitted by Davao Light, the writ of attachment issued. The
summons and a copy of the complaint, as well as the writ of attachment and a copy of the attachment bond, were
served on defendants Queensland and Adarna; and pursuant to the writ, the sheriff seized properties belonging to
the latter.

On September 6, 1989, defendants Queensland and Adarna filed a motion to discharge the attachment for lack of
jurisdiction to issue the same because at the time the order of attachment was promulgated (May 3, 1989) and the
attachment writ issued (May 11, 1989), the Trial Court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the cause and over
the persons of the defendants.

Trial court denied the motion to discharge.

CA annulled the RTCs order. Davao light seeks to reverse CAs order.

ISSUE: Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment was validly issued.

RULING: YES.

A writ of preliminary attachment may be issued before the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.

The court may validly issue a writ of preliminary injunction prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant. There is an appreciable period of time between the commencement of the action (takes place upon
the filing of an initiatory pleading) and the service of summons to the defendant. In the meanwhile, there are a
number of actions which the plaintiff or the court may validly take, including the application for and grant of the
provisional remedy of preliminary attachment. There is nothing in the law which prohibits the court from granting
the remedy prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

In fact, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court allows the granting of a writ of preliminary injunction at the commencement
of the suit. In the cases of Toledo v. Burgos and Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Relova, it was held that notice and
hearing are not prerequisites to the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. Further, in the case of Mindanao
Savings & Loan Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, it was ruled that giving notice to the defendant would defeat
the purpose of the remedy by affording him or her the opportunity to dispose of his properties before the writ can
be issued.

A preliminary attachment may be discharged with the same ease as obtaining it. In any case, the ease of availing
the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment is matched by the ease with which it can be remedied by
either the posting of a counterbond, or by a showing of its improper or irregular issuance. The second means of
defeating a preliminary attachement, however, may not be availed of if the writ was issued upon a ground which is
at the same time the applicant's cause of action.
Preliminary attachment not binding until jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired. The writ of
preliminary attachment, however, even though validly issued, is not binding upon the defendant until jurisdiction
over his person is first acquired.