G.R. No.

171124, February 13, 2008

ALEJANDRO NG WEE, petitioner,
vs.
MANUEL TANKIANSEE, respondent.
Topic: Fraud in incurring obligation
Principle: Fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor's mere non-payment of
the debt or failure to comply with his obligation.

FACTS:
X invested in a financial company in which Y works as vice-chairman and director.
Upon hearing a disturbing news regarding the financial condition of the company, X
instituted a civil case for damages before the RTC and impleaded Y and other parties as
defendant. RTC ruled in favor X and issued writ of preliminary attachments against the
properties of Y and all other defendants. Y and other defendants moved for discharge of
the writ but it was not given due course until it reach finality of judgement.
Y file a second motion to discharge of the writ on the ground that he was not
involved in the fraudulent transactions of the company as he was absent during the board
meetings and that he was also a victim of the fraudulent scheme. The RTC denied once
again motion but the CA, on a petition filed by Y, reversed the decision of RTC and lifted
the writ to the extent of the properties of Y based on the grounds that general and
sweeping allegation of fraud is not a sufficient basis for the issuance of the writ.
ISSUE:
Is the CA correct in lifting the writ?
RULINGS:
YES.
Jurisprudence provides that for a writ of attachment to issue under Section 1(d)
of Rules of Court, the applicant must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the
alleged fraud because fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from the debtor's mere non-
payment of the debt or failure to comply with his obligation.
In this case, X affidavit is bereft of any factual statement that respondent
committed a fraud. It has not shown any specific act or deed to support the allegation
that respondent is guilty of fraud. Hence, lifting of the writ is correct.