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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Heine Vs New York

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Philip G. Maninantan
    1) Davao Light filed a collection suit against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna, applying for a writ of preliminary attachment. The trial court issued the writ before acquiring jurisdiction over the defendants. 2) Queensland and Adarna argued the writ was invalid since jurisdiction had not been acquired yet. However, the court held that a writ can be issued before jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired. 3) There is time between filing and serving summons where provisional remedies like attachment can be granted. The writ is not binding until jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired, though it can be validly issued beforehand.

    Copyright:

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

    Heine Vs New York

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Philip G. Maninantan
    35 views1 page
    1) Davao Light filed a collection suit against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna, applying for a writ of preliminary attachment. The trial court issued the writ before acquiring jurisdiction over the defendants. 2) Queensland and Adarna argued the writ was invalid since jurisdiction had not been acquired yet. However, the court held that a writ can be issued before jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired. 3) There is time between filing and serving summons where provisional remedies like attachment can be granted. The writ is not binding until jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired, though it can be validly issued beforehand.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Heine vs New York

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Davao Light filed a collection suit against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna, applying for a writ of preliminary attachment. The trial court issued the writ before acquiring jurisdiction over the defendants. 2) Queensland and Adarna argued the writ was invalid since jurisdiction had not been acquired yet. However, the court held that a writ can be issued before jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired. 3) There is time between filing and serving summons where provisional remedies like attachment can be granted. The writ is not binding until jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired, though it can be validly issued beforehand.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    35 views1 page

    Heine Vs New York

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Philip G. Maninantan
    1) Davao Light filed a collection suit against Queensland Hotel and Teodorico Adarna, applying for a writ of preliminary attachment. The trial court issued the writ before acquiring jurisdiction over the defendants. 2) Queensland and Adarna argued the writ was invalid since jurisdiction had not been acquired yet. However, the court held that a writ can be issued before jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired. 3) There is time between filing and serving summons where provisional remedies like attachment can be granted. The writ is not binding until jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired, though it can be validly issued beforehand.

    Copyright:

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

    Davao Light v.

    Court of Appeals
    Facts
    The Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. ("Davao Light") filed a collection suit against Queensland Hotel
    ("Queensland") and Teodorico Adarna ("Adarna") with an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment.
    On 3 May 1989, the trial court issued an Order of Attachment, and the corresponding Writ of Attachment on 11 May
    1989. On 12 May 1989, the summons, a copy of the complaint, and the writ of attachment was served upon
    Queensland and Adarna. Queensland and Adarna filed a motion to discharge the attachment on the ground that at
    the time the Order of Attachment and Writ of Attachment were issued, the trial court has yet to acquire jurisdiction
    over the cause of action and over the persons of the defendants.

    Issue
    Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment was validly issued.

    Held
    Yes. A writ of preliminary attachment may be issued before the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
    defendant.

    Ratio Decidendi
    The court may validly issue a writ of preliminary injunction prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of
    the defendant. There is an appreciable period of time between the commencement of the action (takes place upon
    the filing of an initiatory pleading) and the service of summons to the defendant. In the meanwhile, there are a
    number of actions which the plaintiff or the court may validly take, including the application for and grant of the
    provisional remedy of preliminary attachment. There is nothing in the law which prohibits the court from granting the
    remedy prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. In fact, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court
    allows the granting of a writ of preliminary injunction at the commencement of the suit. In the cases of Toledo v.
    Burgos and Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Relova, it was held that notice and hearing are not prerequisites to the
    issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. Further, in the case of Mindanao Savings & Loan Association, Inc. v.
    Court of Appeals, it was ruled that giving notice to the defendant would defeat the purpose of the remedy by
    affording him or her the opportunity to dispose of his properties before the writ can be issued.
    A preliminary attachment may be discharged with the same ease as obtaining it. In any case, the ease of availing
    the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment is matched by the ease with which it can be remedied by
    either the posting of a counterbond, or by a showing of its improper or irregular issuance. The second means of
    defeating a preliminary attachement, however, may not be availed of if the writ was issued upon a ground which is
    at the same time the applicant's cause of action.
    Preliminary attachment not binding until jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired. The writ of
    preliminary attachment, however, even though validly issued, is not binding upon the defendant until jurisdiction
    over his person is first acquired.

    You might also like