Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Case 4: Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 93262 December 29, 1991

    Uploaded by

    Jasmin Gomba
    Davao Light and Power Co. filed a complaint against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna seeking payment and damages. The complaint included a request for a writ of preliminary attachment, which was granted by the court. Queensland and Adarna argued the attachment should be discharged as the court did not have jurisdiction over them yet. The Supreme Court ruled that preliminary attachments can be issued before a court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant, as long as the action was properly commenced by filing the complaint. The Court of Appeals' decision annulling the attachment was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 4: Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 93262 December 29, 1991

    Uploaded by

    Jasmin Gomba
    17 views1 page
    Davao Light and Power Co. filed a complaint against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna seeking payment and damages. The complaint included a request for a writ of preliminary attachment, which was granted by the court. Queensland and Adarna argued the attachment should be discharged as the court did not have jurisdiction over them yet. The Supreme Court ruled that preliminary attachments can be issued before a court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant, as long as the action was properly commenced by filing the complaint. The Court of Appeals' decision annulling the attachment was reversed.

    Original Description:

    hfgh

    Original Title

    Case 4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Davao Light and Power Co. filed a complaint against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna seeking payment and damages. The complaint included a request for a writ of preliminary attachment, which was granted by the court. Queensland and Adarna argued the attachment should be discharged as the court did not have jurisdiction over them yet. The Supreme Court ruled that preliminary attachments can be issued before a court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant, as long as the action was properly commenced by filing the complaint. The Court of Appeals' decision annulling the attachment was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views1 page

    Case 4: Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 93262 December 29, 1991

    Uploaded by

    Jasmin Gomba
    Davao Light and Power Co. filed a complaint against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna seeking payment and damages. The complaint included a request for a writ of preliminary attachment, which was granted by the court. Queensland and Adarna argued the attachment should be discharged as the court did not have jurisdiction over them yet. The Supreme Court ruled that preliminary attachments can be issued before a court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant, as long as the action was properly commenced by filing the complaint. The Court of Appeals' decision annulling the attachment was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Case 4: DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS; G.R. No.

    93262; December 29, 1991


    This case gives a discussion on the nature of Preliminary Injunction.
    In this case, Davao Light and Power Inc, Co. filed a complaint for recovery of sum of
    money and damages against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna. The complaint contained
    an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Judge Nartatez, to whose branch the
    case was assigned by raffle, granted the writ and fixed the attachment bond at around P4Million.
    Summons, copy of complaint, writ of attachment, and copy of attachment bond were served
    upon Queensland and Adarna. As a result and pursuant to the writ, the Sheriff seized the
    properties of the latter.
    Subsequently, 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 cause and person of defendants. Trial Court denied the motion to
    discharge while the CA annulled the Trial Courts Order. Davao seeks to reverse CAs order.
    The question to be resolved is thus, whether or not preliminary attachment may issue ex parte
    against a defendant before acquiring jurisdiction over his person.
    The court ruled in the affirmative. According to the court, Rule 57 speaks of the grant of
    the remedy at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter What the rule is saying
    is that after an action is properly commenced (by filing of the complaint and payment of all
    requisite docket and other fees), the plaintiff may apply for and obtain a writ of preliminary
    attachment. This he may do so, before or after, the summons to the defendant.
    Further, the court also stated that A preliminary attachment as the provisional remedy in
    virtue of which a plaintiff or other party may, at the commencement of the action or at any time
    thereafter, have the property of the adverse party taken into the custody of the court as security
    for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered. It is a remedy which is purely
    statutory in respect of which the law requires a strict construction of the provisions granting it.
    Withal no principle, statutory or jurisprudential, prohibits its issuance by any court before
    acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
    The CA decision is reversed and the writ of attachment issued by Judge Nartatez is
    reinstated.

    You might also like