Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 175587. September 21, 2007.]

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK , petitioner, vs .


JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO , respondent.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

This petition for review assails the May 31, 2006 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 78200 a rming the August 30, 2000 Decision 2 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, which granted respondent Joseph Anthony M.
Alejandro's claim for damages arising from petitioner Philippine Commercial
International Bank's (PCIB) invalid garnishment of respondent's deposits.
On October 23, 1997, petitioner filed against respondent a complaint 3 for sum of
money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. Said complaint
alleged that on September 10, 1997, respondent, a resident of Hong Kong, executed in
favor of petitioner a promissory note obligating himself to pay P249,828,588.90 plus
interest. In view of the uctuations in the foreign exchange rates which resulted in the
insu ciency of the deposits assigned by respondent as security for the loan, petitioner
requested the latter to put up additional security for the loan. Respondent, however,
sought a reconsideration of said request pointing out petitioner's alleged mishandling
of his account due to its failure to carry out his instruction to close his account as early
as April 1997, when the prevailing rate of exchange of the US Dollar to Japanese yen
was US$1.00:JPY127.50. 4 It appears that the amount of P249,828,588.90 was the
consolidated amount of a series of yen loans granted by petitioner to respondent
during the months of February and April 1997. 5
In praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment under Section 1
paragraphs (e) and (f) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, petitioner alleged that (1)
respondent fraudulently withdrew his unassigned deposits notwithstanding his verbal
promise to PCIB Assistant Vice President Corazon B. Nepomuceno not to withdraw the
same prior to their assignment as security for the loan; and (2) that respondent is not a
resident of the Philippines. The application for the issuance of a writ was supported
with the affidavit of Nepomuceno. 6
On October 24, 1997, the trial court granted the application and issued the writ
ex parte 7 after petitioner posted a bond in the amount of P18,798,734.69, issued by
Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Inc., under Bond No. HO-46764-97. On the same
date, the bank deposits of respondent with Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation
(RCBC) were garnished. On October 27, 1997, respondent, through counsel, led a
manifestation informing the court that he is voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction. 8
Subsequently, respondent led a motion to quash 9 the writ contending that the
withdrawal of his unassigned deposits was not fraudulent as it was approved by
petitioner. He also alleged that petitioner knew that he maintains a permanent
residence at Calle Victoria, Ciudad Regina, Batasan Hills, Quezon City, and an o ce
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
address in Makati City at the Law Firm Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & De los
Angeles, 1 0 where he is a partner. In both addresses, petitioner regularly communicated
with him through its representatives. Respondent added that he is the managing
partner of the Hong Kong branch of said Law Firm; that his stay in Hong Kong is only
temporary; and that he frequently travels back to the Philippines.
On December 24, 1997, the trial court issued an order quashing the writ and
holding that the withdrawal of respondent's unassigned deposits was not intended to
defraud petitioner. It also found that the representatives of petitioner personally
transacted with respondent through his home address in Quezon City and/or his o ce
in Makati City. It thus concluded that petitioner misrepresented and suppressed the
facts regarding respondent's residence considering that it has personal and o cial
knowledge that for purposes of service of summons, respondent's residence and
o ce addresses are located in the Philippines. The dispositive portion of the court's
decision is as follows:
WHEREFORE, the URGENT MOTION TO QUASH, being meritorious, is
hereby GRANTED, and the ORDER of 24 October 1997 is hereby RECONSIDERED
and SET ASIDE and the WRIT OF attachment of the same is hereby DISCHARGED.

SO ORDERED. 1 1

With the denial 1 2 of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, it elevated the case
to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 50748) via a petition for certiorari. On May 10,
1999, the petition was dismissed for failure to prove that the trial court abused its
discretion in issuing the aforesaid order. 1 3 Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration
but was denied on October 28, 1999. 1 4 On petition with this Court, the case was
dismissed for late ling in a minute resolution (G.R. No. 140605) dated January 19,
2000. 1 5 Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration but was likewise denied with
finality on March 6, 2000 . 1 6
Meanwhile, on May 20, 1998, respondent led a claim for damages in the amount
of P25 Million 1 7 on the attachment bond (posted by Prudential Guarantee & Assurance,
Inc., under JCL (4) No. 01081, Bond No. HO-46764-97) on account of the wrongful
garnishment of his deposits. He presented evidence showing that his P150,000.00
RCBC check payable to his counsel as attorney's fees, was dishonored by reason of the
garnishment of his deposits. He also testi ed that he is a graduate of the Ateneo de
Manila University in 1982 with a double degree of Economics and Management
Engineering and of the University of the Philippines in 1987 with the degree of Bachelor
of Laws. Respondent likewise presented witnesses to prove that he is a well known
lawyer in the business community both in the Philippines and in Hong Kong. 1 8 For its
part, the lone witness presented by petitioner was Nepomuceno who claimed that she
acted in good faith in alleging that respondent is a resident of Hong Kong. 1 9
On August 30, 2000, the trial court awarded damages to respondent in the
amount of P25 Million without specifying the basis thereof, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises above considered, and defendant having duly
established his claim in the amount of P25,000,000.00, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering Prudential Guarantee & [Assurance] Co., which is solidarily
liable with plaintiff to pay defendant the full amount of bond under Prudential
Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. JCL(4) No. 01081, [Bond No. HO-46764-97], dated 24
October 1997 in the amount of P18,798,734.69. And, considering that the amount
of the bond is insu cient to fully satisfy the award for damages, plaintiff is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
hereby ordered to pay defendant the amount of P6,201,265.31.

SO ORDERED. 2 0

The trial court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on October 24,
2000. 2 1
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which a rmed the ndings
of the trial court. It held that in claiming that respondent was not a resident of the
Philippines, petitioner cannot be said to have been in good faith considering that its
knowledge of respondent's Philippine residence and o ce address goes into the very
issue of the trial court's jurisdiction which would have been defective had respondent
not voluntarily appeared before it.
The Court of Appeals, however, reduced the amount of damages awarded to
petitioner and speci ed their basis. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court
of Appeals states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED and the decision
appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. The award of damages in the amount of
P25,000,000.00 is deleted. In lieu thereof, Prudential Guarantee & [Assurance, Inc.],
which is solidarily liable with appellant [herein petitioner], is ORDERED to pay
appellee [herein respondent] P2,000,000.00 as nominal damages; P5,000,000.00
as moral damages; and P1,000,000.00 as attorney's fees, to be satis ed against
the attachment bond under Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. JCL (4) No.
01081.

SO ORDERED. 2 2

Both parties moved for reconsideration. On November 21, 2006, the Court of
Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration but granted that of
respondent's by ordering petitioner to pay additional P5 Million as exemplary damages.
23

Hence, the instant petition.


At the outset, it must be noted that the ruling of the trial court that petitioner is
not entitled to a writ of attachment because respondent is a resident of the Philippines
and that his act of withdrawing his deposits with petitioner was without intent to
defraud, can no longer be passed upon by this Court. More importantly, the conclusions
of the court that petitioner bank misrepresented that respondent was residing out of
the Philippines and suppressed the fact that respondent has a permanent residence in
Metro Manila where he may be served with summons, are now beyond the power of
this Court to review having been the subject of a nal and executory order. Said ndings
were sustained by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50784 and by this Court in
G.R. No. 140605. The rule on conclusiveness of judgment, which obtains under the
premises, precludes the relitigation of a particular fact or issue in another action
between the same parties even if based on a different claim or cause of action. The
judgment in the prior action operates as estoppel as to those matters in issue or points
controverted, upon the determination of which the nding or judgment was rendered.
The previous judgment is conclusive in the second case, as to those matters actually
and directly controverted and determined. 2 4 Hence, the issues of misrepresentation by
petitioner and the residence of respondent for purposes of service of summons can no
longer be questioned by petitioner in this case.
The core issue for resolution is whether petitioner bank is liable for damages for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
the improper issuance of the writ of attachment against respondent. TcSaHC

We rule in the affirmative.


Notwithstanding the nal judgment that petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation
and suppression of a material fact, the latter contends that it acted in good faith.
Petitioner also contends that even if respondent is considered a resident of the
Philippines, attachment is still proper under Section 1, paragraph (f), Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court since he (respondent) is a resident who is temporarily out of the
Philippines upon whom service of summons may be effected by publication.
Petitioner's contentions are without merit.
While the nal order of the trial court which quashed the writ did not categorically
use the word "bad faith" in characterizing the representations of petitioner, the tenor of
said order evidently considers the latter to have acted in bad faith by resorting to a
deliberate strategy to mislead the court. Thus —
In the hearings of the motion, and oral arguments of counsels before the
Court, it appears that plaintiff BANK through its contracting o cers Vice
President CORAZON B. NEPOMUCENO and Executive Vice President JOSE
RAMON F. REVILLA, personally transacted with defendant mainly through
defendant's permanent residence in METRO-MANILA, either in defendant's home
address in Quezon City or his main business address at the ROMULO MABANTA
BUENAVENTURA SAYOC & DELOS ANGELES in MAKATI and while at times follow
ups were made through defendant's temporary home and business addresses in
Hongkong. It is therefore clear that plaintiff could not deny their personal and
o cial knowledge that defendant's permanent and o cial residence for
purposes of service of summons is in the Philippines. In fact, this nding is
further con rmed by the letter of Mr. JOHN GOKONGWEI, JR. Chairman, Executive
Committee of plaintiff BANK, in his letter dated 6 October 1997 on the subject
loan to defendant of the same law firm was addressed to the ROMULO LAW FIRM
in MAKATI.

[Anent the] second ground of attachment . . . [t]he Court nds that the
amount withdrawn was not part of defendant's peso deposits assigned with the
bank to secure the loan and as proof that the withdrawal was not intended to
defraud plaintiff as creditor is that plaintiff approved and allowed said
withdrawals. It is even noted that when the Court granted the prayer for
attachment it was mainly on the rst ground under Section 1(f) of Rule 57 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, that defendant resides out of the Philippines.

On the above ndings, it is obvious that plaintiff already knew from the
beginning the de ciency of its second ground for attachment [ i.e.,] disposing
properties with intent to defraud his creditors, and therefore plaintiff had to resort
to this misrepresentation that defendant was residing out of the Philippines and
suppressed the fact that defendant's permanent residence is in METRO MANILA
where he could be served with summons.
On the above ndings, and mainly on the misrepresentations made by
plaintiff on the grounds for the issuance of the attachment in the veri ed
complaint, the Court concludes that defendant has duly proven its grounds in the
MOTION and that plaintiff is not entitled to the attachment. 2 5

Petitioner is therefore barred by the principle of conclusiveness of judgment


from again invoking good faith in the application for the issuance of the writ. Similarly,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
in the case of Hanil Development Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals , 2 6 the Court debunked
the claim of good faith by a party who maliciously sought the issuance of a writ of
attachment, the bad faith of said party having been previously determined in a nal
decision which voided the assailed writ. Thus —
Apropos the Application for Judgment on the Attachment Bond, Escobar
claims in its petition that the award of attorney's fees and injunction bond
premium in favor of Hanil is [contrary] to law and jurisprudence. It contends that
no malice or bad faith may be imputed to it in procuring the writ.
Escobar's protestation is now too late in the day. The question of the
illegality of the attachment and Escobar's bad faith in obtaining it has long been
settled in one of the earlier incidents of this case. The Court of Appeals, in its
decision rendered on February 3, 1983 in C.A.-G.R. No. SP-14512, voided the
challenged writ, having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Escobar's bad
faith in procuring the writ cannot be doubted. Its Petition for the Issuance of
Preliminary Attachment made such damning allegations that: Hanil was already
able to secure a complete release of its nal collection from the MPWH; it has
moved out some of its heavy equipments for unknown destination, and it may
leave the country anytime. Worse, its Ex Parte Motion to Resolve Petition alleged
that "after personal veri cation by (Escobar) of (Hanil's) equipment in Cagayan
de Oro City, it appears that the equipments were no longer existing from their
compound." All these allegations of Escobar were found to be totally baseless
and untrue.

Even assuming that the trial court did not make a categorical pronouncement of
misrepresentation and suppression of material facts on the part of petitioner, the
factual backdrop of this case does not support petitioner's claim of good faith. The
facts and circumstances omitted are highly material and relevant to the grant or denial
of writ of attachment applied for.
Finally, there is no merit in petitioner's contention that respondent can be
considered a resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines upon whom service of
summons may be effected by publication, and therefore quali es as among those
against whom a writ of attachment may be issued under Section 1, paragraph (f), Rule
57 of the Rules of Court which provides:
(f)In an action against a party . . . on whom summons may be
served by publication.

In so arguing, petitioner attempts to give the impression that although it


erroneously invoked the ground that respondent does not reside in the Philippines, it
should not be made to pay damages because it is in fact entitled to a writ of
attachment had it invoked the proper ground under Rule 57. However, even on this
alternative ground, petitioner is still not entitled to the issuance of a writ of attachment.
The circumstances under which a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued
are set forth in Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
SEC. 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At the
commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff
or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as
security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the
following cases:

(a) In an action for the recovery of a speci ed amount of money or


CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law,
contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party who is about to
depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors;
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently
misapplied or converted to his own use by a public o cer, or an o cer of a
corporation or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his
employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful
violation of duty;

(c) In an action to recover the possession of personal property unjustly


or fraudulently taken, detained, or converted, when the property, or any part
thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or
taken by the applicant or an authorized person;

(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in


contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought,
or in the performance thereof;
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his
property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors;
(f) In an action against a party who resides out of the
Philippines , or on whom summons may be served by publication .

The purposes of preliminary attachment are: (1) to seize the property of the
debtor in advance of nal judgment and to hold it for purposes of satisfying said
judgment, as in the grounds stated in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Section 1, Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court; or (2) to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or constructive
seizure of the property in those instances where personal or substituted service
of summons on the defendant cannot be effected , as in paragraph (f) of the
same provision. 2 7
Corollarily, in actions in personam, such as the instant case for collection of sum
of money, 2 8 summons must be served by personal or substituted service, otherwise
the court will not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant. In case the defendant does
not reside and is not found in the Philippines (and hence personal and substituted
service cannot be effected), the remedy of the plaintiff in order for the court to acquire
jurisdiction to try the case is to convert the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in
rem by attaching the property of the defendant. 2 9 Thus, in order to acquire jurisdiction
in actions in personam where defendant resides out of and is not found in the
Philippines, it becomes a matter of course for the court to convert the action into a
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem by attaching the defendant's property. The service of
summons in this case (which may be by publication coupled with the sending by
registered mail of the copy of the summons and the court order to the last known
address of the defendant), is no longer for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction but for
compliance with the requirements of due process. 3 0
However, where the defendant is a resident who is temporarily out of the
Philippines, attachment of his/her property in an action in personam, is not always
necessary in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction to hear the case.
Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court reads:
Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — When an
action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also
effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section.

The preceding section referred to in the above provision is Section 15 which


provides for extraterritorial service — (a) personal service out of the Philippines, (b)
publication coupled with the sending by registered mail of the copy of the summons
and the court order to the last known address of the defendant; or (c) in any other
manner which the court may deem sufficient.
In Montalban v. Maximo , 3 1 however, the Court held that substituted service of
summons (under the present Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court) is the normal
mode of service of summons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over the person
of residents temporarily out of the Philippines. Meaning, service of summons may be
effected by (a) leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some
person of suitable discretion residing therein, or (b) by leaving copies at the
defendant's o ce or regular place of business with some competent person in charge
thereof. 3 2 Hence, the court may acquire jurisdiction over an action in personam by
mere substituted service without need of attaching the property of the defendant.
The rationale in providing for substituted service as the normal mode of service
for residents temporarily out of the Philippines, was expounded in Montalban v.
Maximo, 3 3 in this wise:
A man temporarily absent from this country leaves a de nite place of residence, a
dwelling where he lives, a local base, so to speak, to which any inquiry about him may be
directed and where he is bound to return. Where one temporarily absents himself, he leaves
his affairs in the hands of one who may be reasonably expected to act in his place and stead;
to do all that is necessary to protect his interests; and to communicate with him from time to
time any incident of importance that may affect him or his business or his affairs. It is usual
for such a man to leave at his home or with his business associates information as to where
he may be contacted in the event a question that affects him crops up.
Thus, in actions in personam against residents temporarily out of the Philippines,
the court need not always attach the defendant's property in order to have authority to
try the case. Where the plaintiff seeks to attach the defendant's property and to resort
to the concomitant service of summons by publication, the same must be with prior
leave, precisely because, if the sole purpose of the attachment is for the court
to acquire jurisdiction , the latter must determine whether from the allegations in the
complaint, substituted service (to persons of suitable discretion at the defendant's
residence or to a competent person in charge of his o ce or regular place of business)
will su ce, or whether there is a need to attach the property of the defendant and
resort to service of summons by publication in order for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the case and to comply with the requirements of due process.
In the instant case, it must be stressed that the writ was issued by the trial court
mainly on the representation of petitioner that respondent is not a resident of the
Philippines. 3 4 Obviously, the trial court's issuance of the writ was for the sole purpose
of acquiring jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Had the allegations in the
complaint disclosed that respondent has a residence in Quezon City and an o ce in
Makati City, the trial court, if only for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction, could have
served summons by substituted service on the said addresses, instead of attaching the
property of the defendant. The rules on the application of a writ of attachment must be
strictly construed in favor of the defendant. For attachment is harsh, extraordinary, and
summary in nature; it is a rigorous remedy which exposes the debtor to humiliation and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
annoyance. 3 5 It should be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy.
It is clear from the foregoing that even on the allegation that respondent is a
resident temporarily out of the Philippines, petitioner is still not entitled to a writ of
attachment because the trial court could acquire jurisdiction over the case by
substituted service instead of attaching the property of the defendant. The
misrepresentation of petitioner that respondent does not reside in the Philippines and
its omission of his local addresses was thus a deliberate move to ensure that the
application for the writ will be granted.
In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals properly sustained the nding of
the trial court that petitioner is liable for damages for the wrongful issuance of a writ of
attachment against respondent.
Anent the actual damages, the Court of Appeals is correct in not awarding the
same inasmuch as the respondent failed to establish the amount garnished by
petitioner. It is a well settled rule that one who has been injured by a wrongful
attachment can recover damages for the actual loss resulting therefrom. But for such
losses to be recoverable, they must constitute actual damages duly established by
competent proofs, which are, however, wanting in the present case. 3 6
Nevertheless, nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has
been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing
that right, and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Its award is
thus not for the purpose of indemni cation for a loss but for the recognition and
vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in
fact. 3 7 They are recoverable where some injury has been done but the pecuniary value
of the damage is not shown by evidence and are thus subject to the discretion of the
court according to the circumstances of the case. 3 8
In this case, the award of nominal damages is proper considering that the right
of respondent to use his money has been violated by its garnishment. The amount of
nominal damages must, however, be reduced from P2 million to P50,000.00
considering the short period of 2 months during which the writ was in effect as well as
the lack of evidence as to the amount garnished.
Likewise, the award of attorney's fees is proper when a party is compelled to
incur expenses to lift a wrongfully issued writ of attachment. The basis of the award
thereof is also the amount of money garnished, and the length of time respondents
have been deprived of the use of their money by reason of the wrongful attachment. 3 9
It may also be based upon (1) the amount and the character of the services rendered;
(2) the labor, time and trouble involved; (3) the nature and importance of the litigation
and business in which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5)
the amount of money and the value of the property affected by the controversy or
involved in the employment; (6) the skill and the experience called for in the
performance of the services; (7) the professional character and the social standing of
the attorney; (8) the results secured, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may
properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not. 4 0
All the aforementioned weighed, and considering the short period of time it took
to have the writ lifted, the favorable decisions of the courts below, the absence of
evidence as to the professional character and the social standing of the attorney
handling the case and the amount garnished, the award of attorney's fees should be
fixed not at P1 Million, but only at P200,000.00.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com


The courts below correctly awarded moral damages on account of petitioner's
misrepresentation and bad faith; however, we nd the award in the amount of P5
Million excessive. Moral damages are to be fixed upon the discretion of the court taking
into consideration the educational, social and nancial standing of the parties. 4 1 Moral
damages are not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant. 4 2
They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or
amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason
of petitioner's culpable action. Moral damages must be commensurate with the loss or
injury suffered. Hence, the award of moral damages is reduced to P500,000.00.
Considering petitioner's bad faith in securing the writ of attachment, we sustain
the award of exemplary damages by way of example or correction for public good. This
should deter parties in litigations from resorting to baseless and preposterous
allegations to obtain writs of attachments. While as a general rule, the liability on the
attachment bond is limited to actual (or in some cases, temperate or nominal)
damages, exemplary damages may be recovered where the attachment was
established to be maliciously sued out. 4 3 Nevertheless, the award of exemplary
damages in this case should be reduced from P5M to P500,000.00.
Finally, contrary to the claim of petitioner, the instant case for damages by
reason of the invalid issuance of the writ, survives the dismissal of the main case for
sum of money. Su ce it to state that the claim for damages arising from such
wrongful attachment may arise and be decided separately from the merits of the main
action. 4 4
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The May 31, 2006 Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 78200 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. As
modi ed, petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank is ordered to pay
respondent Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro the following amounts: P50,000.00 as
nominal damages, P200,000.00 as attorney's fees; and P500,000.00 as moral
damages, and P500,000.00 as exemplary damages, to be satis ed against the
attachment bond issued by Prudential Guarantee & Assurance Inc., 4 5 under JCL (4) No.
01081, Bond No. HO-46764-97.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Chico-Nazario, Nachura and Reyes., JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., concurs but moral damages should be reduced to
P200,000.00 and exemplary damages reduced to P100,000.00.
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 199-220. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by
Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Mariano C. Del Castillo.
2.Record on appeal, vol. 1, pp. 357-365.
3.Id. at 13-16.

4.Id. at 40.
5.Id. at 34-35.
6.Id. at 17.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com


7.Id. at 22-28.
8.TSN, vol. II, set I, pp. 633-639.
9.Record on appeal, vol. I, pp. 30-38.
10.Also spelled as Delos Angeles in some parts of the records and rollo.

11.Id. at 67-69. Penned by Judge Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr.


12.Id. at 128.
13.Rollo, pp. 328-334. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Hector L. Ho leña and
concurred in by Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
(now a member of this Court).

14.Id. at 335-336.
15.Id. at 337.
16.Id. at 338.
17.Record on appeal, vol. I, pp. 73-78.

18.Id. at 359-361.
19.Id. at 362.
20.Id. at 365. Penned by Judge Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr.
21.Id. at 392-394.
22.Rollo, p. 220.

23.Id. at 223-225.
24.Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142401, August 20, 2001, 363 SCRA 444, 445 and 449-450.
25.Record on appeal, Vol. II, pp. 67-68.
26.G.R. Nos. 113176 & 113342, July 30, 2001, 362 SCRA 1, 15.

27.Herrera, Remedial Law, vol. III, pp. 2 and 8; Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, vol. I,
ninth revised edition, p. 678.
28.Obaña v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78635, April 27, 1989, 172 SCRA 866, 874.

29.Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. v. Breva , G.R. No. L-82811, October 18, 1988, 166
SCRA 589, 593-594; Obaña v. Court of Appeals, supra at 874.

30.Sahagun v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78328, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 44, 54.
31.131 Phil. 154, 165-166 (1968).
32.The pronouncement of the Court in Castillo v. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch IV
(G.R. No. L-55869, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 632) that with respect to residents
temporarily out of the Philippines, non-compliance with the modes of service under
Section 17 (now Section 15, i.e., service of summons out of the Philippines by personal
service, or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation), is a denial of due
process and renders the proceedings void, does not mean that said modes of service are
exclusive. Substituted service of summons is still the normal mode of service for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
residents temporarily out of the Philippines. The declaration of nullity of the proceedings
in the said case was by reason of the defective substituted service of summons to a
person not authorized to receive the same being a mere overseer of the lessee in the
conjugal property of the defendant, and not because substituted service of summons per
se is not among the valid modes of service upon a resident temporarily out of the
country.
33.Supra at 164-165.

34.The pertinent portion of the December 24, 1997 Order of the trial court, provides:
"It is even noted that when the Court granted the prayer for attachment it was mainly on the first
ground under Section 1 (f) of Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, that
defendant resides out of the Philippines."
35.Jardine-Manila Finance, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 55272, April 10, 1989, 171 SCRA
636, 645.
36.Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court , G.R. No. 73610,
April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 29, 36-37.
37.Almeda v. Cariño, G.R. No. 152143, January 13, 2003, 395 SCRA 144, 149-150.

38.Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corporation v. Court of First Instance of Rizal,


(Branch XXXIV), G.R. No. L-41093, October 30, 1978, 86 SCRA 59, 64; Pedrosa v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 118680, March 5, 2001, 353 SCRA 620, 630-631.
39.Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 135830, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 266, 300.

40.Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125536, March 16, 2000, 328 SCRA 264, 272.
41.Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra at 38-39.

42.Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court , G.R. No. L-65935, September 30,
1988, 166 SCRA 155, 165-166.
43.Hanil Development Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26 at 16.

44.Carlos v. Sandoval, supra at 290-291.

45The surety, Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc., was duly noti ed of respondent's
application for damages (Record on appeal, p. 78) pursuant to Section 20, Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com