Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

G.R. NO.

123638 June 15, 2005

INSULAR SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE OMAR U. AMIN, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 135 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, and FAR EAST
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Respondents.

FACTS: In 1991, Far East instituted arbitration proceedings against Insular before the PCHC.
Insular was refusing to refund 25m resulting from 3 unfunded checks.

Pending arbitration in 1992, Far East instituted a civil case with the RTC and prayed for
the issuance of preliminary attachment. After Far East posted a 6m bond, the RTC issued the
writ for 25.2m.

Meanwhile, pending arbitration results, Far East and Insular agreed to temporarily
divide among themselves the amount. Insular thus released 12.6m to Far East. Later, Insular
filed a motion to discharge the attachment by posting a counterbond of 12.6m.

However, the judge denied the order, stating that the counterbond should be 27.2m,
which is the principal amount + contingent expenses and unliquidated damages.

Unsecured amount - 12.6m

Actual damages 25%/annum 7.8m

Legal interest 3.8m

Exemplary damages 2m

Attorneys fees and costs 1m

ISSUE: WON the judge was correct in holding that the counterbond should be the principal
amount + unliquidated expenses? NO

HELD:

The Court should have allowed a discharge of the attachment on a counterbond based on the
reduced claim

If a portion of the claim is already secured, we see no justifiable reason why such portion
should still be subject of counter-bond. It may be that a counter-bond is intended to secure the
payment of any judgment that the attaching party may recover in the main action. Simple
common sense, if not consideration of fair play, however, dictates that a part of a possible
judgment that has veritably been preemptively satisfied or secured need not be covered by the
counter-bond.

Contingent and unliquidated claims may not be included in an attaching writ.

Far East did not pray for attachment on its contingent and unliquidated claims. Then, too, the
attaching writ rightly excluded such claims.

Section 12 of Rule 57 is less stringent

Old rules - the value of the property attached shall be the defining measure in the computation
of the discharging counter-attachment bond

New rules - the court shall order the discharge of attachment if the movant "makes a cash
deposit, or files a counter-bond . . . in an amount equal to that fixed by the court in the order of
attachment, exclusive of costs.