In the Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro case, the Supreme Court addressed the matter of damages arising from the improper issuance of a writ of attachment. The Court affirmed the liability of PCIB for misrepresenting facts to obtain the writ, leading to the wrongful garnishment of Alejandro’s deposits. This decision reinforces the principle that banks and other entities must exercise due diligence and honesty when seeking provisional remedies that could significantly impact individuals’ financial stability and reputation. It serves as a reminder that abusing legal processes can have serious financial repercussions.

When a Bank’s Misleading Claims Lead to Wrongful Attachment

The case arose when Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) filed a complaint for a sum of money against Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro, a resident of Hong Kong, based on a promissory note. PCIB sought a writ of preliminary attachment, claiming Alejandro was a non-resident and had fraudulently withdrawn deposits. The trial court initially granted the writ, leading to the garnishment of Alejandro’s bank deposits. However, the writ was later quashed because PCIB misrepresented Alejandro’s residency, knowing he maintained residences and offices in the Philippines.

Alejandro then filed a claim for damages due to the wrongful garnishment. The trial court awarded him P25 million, but the Court of Appeals modified this, awarding nominal, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed PCIB’s liability but adjusted the amounts of damages awarded. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether PCIB was liable for damages because of the improper issuance of the writ of attachment against Alejandro.

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, stating that the prior ruling that PCIB misrepresented facts regarding Alejandro’s residency was final and binding. This meant PCIB could not relitigate the issue of misrepresentation. The Court cited Tan v. Court of Appeals, where it was established that a judgment in a prior action operates as an estoppel, preventing the same parties from contesting previously determined issues, even in a different cause of action. The Court reiterated that the issues of misrepresentation by the petitioner and the residence of the respondent, for purposes of service of summons, can no longer be questioned by petitioner in this case.

“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 finding or judgment was rendered. The previous judgment is conclusive in the second case, as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined.”

PCIB argued it acted in good faith and that attachment was proper since Alejandro was temporarily out of the Philippines. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, pointing out the trial court’s finding that PCIB had deliberately misled the court. The Supreme Court underscored that the tenor of the order quashing the writ explicitly indicated bad faith on the part of PCIB by employing a calculated strategy to deceive the court. This echoes the principle articulated in Hanil Development Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, where the Court denied a claim of good faith by a party who maliciously sought a writ of attachment, with the party’s bad faith already established in a final decision voiding the writ.

Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed PCIB’s contention that even if Alejandro was a resident temporarily out of the country, attachment was still warranted under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. The Court clarified that for residents temporarily abroad, substituted service is the normal mode of service, not necessarily attachment. The court cited Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court:

“Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. – When an action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the 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 Court explained the purposes of preliminary attachment are: (1) to seize the debtor’s property to satisfy a judgment or (2) to acquire jurisdiction when personal service is impossible. Substituted service—leaving copies of summons at the defendant’s residence or office—can confer jurisdiction without attachment, especially for those temporarily abroad. The court referenced Montalban v. Maximo, emphasizing that residents temporarily absent leave a local base where inquiries can be directed and where they are bound to return. For those temporarily out of the Philippines, the Court highlighted the possibility of substituted service to individuals of suitable discretion at their residence or competent individuals in charge of their office or place of business.

In actions *in personam* against residents temporarily out of the Philippines, the court does not always need to attach the defendant’s property in order to have authority to try the case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that the writ of attachment was issued primarily because PCIB misrepresented that Alejandro was not a resident. The Court also noted that the rules on the application of a writ of attachment must be strictly construed in favor of the defendant. Attachment is a harsh, extraordinary, and summary remedy that exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance, hence, it should be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy.

Regarding damages, the Court of Appeals had not awarded actual damages due to lack of proof of the amount garnished, but nominal damages were proper given the violation of Alejandro’s right to use his money. The Supreme Court reduced the nominal damages from P2 million to P50,000, considering the relatively short duration of the garnishment and lack of specific evidence of the amount garnished. The Court also found the award of attorney’s fees proper because Alejandro was compelled to incur expenses to lift the wrongful attachment, reducing it from P1 million to P200,000 based on various factors including the time taken to lift the writ and the absence of evidence of the attorney’s professional character and standing.

While the lower courts correctly awarded moral damages on account of the bank’s misrepresentation and bad faith, the Supreme Court considered the award of P5 million excessive. Moral damages should be proportionate to the suffering experienced and take into account the parties’ social and financial standing. Accordingly, the Court reduced the moral damages to P500,000, balancing the need to compensate Alejandro for his suffering without unjustly enriching him. Exemplary damages, aimed at deterring similar misconduct, were sustained but also reduced from P5 million to P500,000, as a sufficient penalty to discourage parties from making baseless allegations to obtain attachments.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether PCIB was liable for damages due to the wrongful issuance of a writ of attachment against Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro. The court examined whether PCIB misrepresented facts to obtain the writ improperly.
Why was the writ of attachment initially issued?	The writ was initially issued based on PCIB’s claim that Alejandro was a non-resident of the Philippines and had fraudulently withdrawn deposits. However, these claims were later found to be misrepresentations.
What is the principle of conclusiveness of judgment?	This principle prevents parties from relitigating issues already decided in a prior action, even if the subsequent case involves a different cause of action. It ensures finality and stability in judicial decisions.
What is the purpose of a preliminary attachment?	A preliminary attachment serves either to seize the debtor’s property to satisfy a judgment or to acquire jurisdiction when personal service is impossible. It secures the property in advance of a final judgment.
What is substituted service, and when is it appropriate?	Substituted service involves leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence or office. It is appropriate when the defendant is a resident temporarily out of the Philippines, providing an alternative to personal service or attachment.
What types of damages were awarded in this case?	The Supreme Court awarded nominal damages, attorney’s fees, moral damages, and exemplary damages. Actual damages were not awarded due to lack of evidence of the specific amount garnished.
Why were moral and exemplary damages reduced by the Supreme Court?	The Court found the original amounts excessive, stating that moral damages should be proportionate to the suffering experienced, and exemplary damages should serve as a reasonable deterrent. The reductions aimed to align the awards with the specific circumstances of the case.
Can a claim for damages due to wrongful attachment survive the dismissal of the main case?	Yes, the claim for damages arising from wrongful attachment can be decided separately from the merits of the main action. This means even if the original case is dismissed, the claim for damages can still proceed.
What must a party do to seek a writ of attachment?	A party must meet the criteria in Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. These include actions for recovery of money, embezzlement, fraud, or against a party residing outside the Philippines or subject to service by publication.

This case highlights the importance of honesty and diligence when seeking provisional remedies like writs of attachment. Banks and other entities must ensure the accuracy of their representations to the court and avoid misusing legal processes. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that wrongful attachments can lead to significant liability, including damages and attorney’s fees.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro, G.R. No. 175587, September 21, 2007