Brondial Notes
Brondial Notes
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
We are now on provisional remedies from Rule 57 - 61. So there are 5
provisional remedies. Just remember the word AIRRS.
But if you are asked, don't say attachment as a provisional remedy but rather it is
preliminary attachment. Don't say injunction as a provisional remedy but rather
preliminary injunction. As to receivership, yes it is both an action and a
provisional remedy. Technically, it is not the receivership which is the provisional
remedy but rather appointment of a receiver because in receivership it is also a
kind of action. And then you have replevin or delivery of possession of personal
property. And then finally you have support pendente lite. Support is not a
provisional remedy but it is support pendente lite which is a provisional remedy.
Now, let me give you a bird's eye view of these provisional remedies.
First, because they are provisional, they cannot stand alone. Being provisional
remedies, they are dependent, contingent, or adhere to a principal action. So that
you cannot find an action for preliminary attachment. It must always be adhered
to the principal action.
Q: Because of that, what are the principal actions to which these provisional
remedies attach?
A:
1.) As to preliminary attachment, the principal action is recovery of real or
personal property. If you try to look at Section 1 Rule 57, you will find out that
all the actions there are for recovery of either real or personal property.
2.) As to preliminary injunction, the principal action is injunction although these
seldom find, in actual practice, an action for injunction because it always goes
with some other actions. Like for example specific performance and injunction
plus damages with prayer of preliminary injunction. Is there an action which is
injunction? Yes. Under Section 4 of Rule 39.
3.) As to receivership, receivership is the principal action. The provisional remedy
is appointment of a receiver. If you go and look at Section 4 of Rule 39, you
will see that receivership is an action.
4.) As to replevin, the principal action is recovery of personal property. In
replevin, a foreclosure on mortgage is possible.
5.) As to support pendente lite, the principal action is support.
Q: Which court has jurisdiction over these provisional remedies?
A: General answer is because they are contingent, that court which has
jurisdiction over the principal action also has jurisdiction over these provisional
remedies. Precisely because they adhere to the principal action.
But let us be more specific, because prior to the 1997 Rules of Court injunction,
for example, is cognizable only by the RTC. But with RA 7691 (expansion of the
ANGELO NIO SANTOS, CRESENTE BERNADOS, IRVIN BAUTISTA, IVY MINETTE
MENDOZA and SARAH JANE CASAUAY
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED
RULE 57
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
Provisional remedy: Preliminary Attachment
Principal action: recovery of either real or personal property
Memorize Section 1 (the grounds) of Rule 57. Remember, you will appreciate
Rule 57 had you understood Rule 39 because there are cross-references
between these provisions. Section 7 of Rule 57 you will find out that that is also
practically the same or similar provision in Section 9-11 of Rule 39. Section 16 in
Rule 39 is Section 14 Rule 57, and Section 7 Rule 60 (Replevin). Try to analyze
it, pare-pareho. The 3rd party claimant will simply execute an affidavit. The sheriff
will not be bound to hold it but deliver it to the 3rd party claimant. Yang v. Valdez
(was given in the bar about 5 years ago) - the 5 day period of redelivery bond.
You have now to distinguish a bond from a counter bond. Later on, remember
that it is different from a supersedeas bond which you have studied and under
Settlement of Estate. Here, we are dealing with bond and counter bond. Bond is
required of the applicant. Counter bond is required of the person against
whom the application was filed. Deposit can be cash either on the part of the
plaintiff or the defendant as the case may be.
Q: Take note of Section 1. When can you file or apply for a writ of preliminary
attachment?
A: It says there at the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of
judgment.
Q: Bakit? Why should you not apply for a writ of preliminary attachment when
judgment has already been entered?
A: Because your remedy is not attachment but your remedy is execution under
Rule 39. Remember when we were discussing Section 27-29 of Rule 39
(regarding redemption and redemptioner), so that when a property was sold on
attachment, there are possible redemptioners because Section 1 says at the
commencement of the action, you already apply for the issuance of the writ of
preliminary attachment. And if the writ is issued and implemented, the sheriff, to
whom the writ is addressed, takes actual custody of the property if it is capable of
manual delivery. In the case of replevin, ibibigay ng sheriff sa applicant after 5
days if there is no redelivery bond is filed. But in the case of preliminary
attachment, kukunin niya yan for safe keeping. And it will only be sold after
judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff (applicant).
Q: Once a property has been replevined and again it was attached, is it still
valid?
A: Yes. once the property is replevined it can still be attached. But if the property
is attached it cannot be replevined. Because in attachment, you may not take
possession but in replevin you have to take possession.
ANGELO NIO SANTOS, CRESENTE BERNADOS, IRVIN BAUTISTA, IVY MINETTE
MENDOZA and SARAH JANE CASAUAY
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED
Q: A 3rd party can deal with the property that has been attached. Suppose it was
mortgaged with a bank after it has been attached, is it possible?
A: Yes. The mortgage becomes a lien subsequent to the lien under which the
property was sold if ever the plaintiff wins in the case.
You cannot just attach right and left if there is no ground. That is why let me
emphasize Section 3 of Rule 57.
1. There must be a valid cause of action. Because preliminary attachment is
only provisional so if the cause of action is invalid, the preliminary attachment
is also invalid.
2. There must be a valid ground among the 6 enumerated grounds under
Section 1.
3. There must be no other security. Or if ever there is, the security is not
sufficient.
4. The order must be equivalent to the sum for which you are asking.
NOTE: These 4 requirements must be contained in an affidavit. So your affidavit
is pro forma or insufficient if it does not allege these 4 basic requirements as
enumerated under Section 3. Aside from that affidavit of merits, bond must
accompany it.
Q: What do you notice in the grounds under Section 1?
A: Yung first three, it is a kind of action. Yung last three, it is the party involved.
First action, it is an action for specific amount of money and damages other than
moral and exemplary damages on an action arising from law, contracts, quasicontracts, delicts, quasi-delicts against a party who is about to abscond in fraud
of creditors.
Q: Why other that moral and exemplary damages?
A: There is no basis. The basis must be personal, wounded feelings etc.
Q: Ano yung mga requirements niyan?
A:
1. Your actions should be for sum of money and damages, other than moral and
exemplary damages.
2. Your cause of action is based on a law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, or
quasi-delict.
3. It must be directed against a party who is to depart from the Philippines with
intent to defraud.
Second action, an action also for recovery. But look at the defendant here, the
defendant is a public officer, officer of a corporation, attorney, factor, broker,
agent, or clerk. In other words there must be a fiduciary relationship between
the applicant and the respondent.
Third action, recovery of possession, this time, against a party who removed,
ANGELO NIO SANTOS, CRESENTE BERNADOS, IRVIN BAUTISTA, IVY MINETTE
MENDOZA and SARAH JANE CASAUAY
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED
NOTE: This is the peculiarity of rule 57. Unlike all other bonds which answer only
for damages, it is only in Rule 57 will the bond answer for the judgment. So you
underline the word judgment. Kasi dito mo lang makikita yan sa Rule 57.
Because in Rules 58-61, the bond answers for damages. While in Rule 57, the
bond answers for judgment. Ano'ng ibig sabihin nun? Sometimes damages can
be separated from judgment. But in most instances hindi. Let's say defendant is
ordered to pay P20,000 as principal obligation and damages of P10,000, so
hiwalay. In other cases the bond or counter bond only answers for the P10,000.
But in preliminary attachment, the bond or counter bond answers for the
P30,000, judgment and damages.
Do not be misled therefore by cross-references to Section 20 by the other rules.
Do you notice that? di ba puro cross-references. Section 8 of Rule 58, Section 9
of Rule 59, and Section 10, Rule 60 cross-refer to Section 20, Rule 57. The
cross-reference is correct but the difference is that the bond and counter bond in
all these provisional remedies answer only for damages. But in writ of preliminary
attachment because of its precedent section which is Section 19, which answers
for any judgment.
Q: How do you discharge the writ of preliminary attachment?
A: So the writ of preliminary attachment has already been issued or served as
the case may be. At any stage, you can always discharge the writ. Under
Sections 5, 12, and 13. These are important sections. Read that and you will
note the differences.
Q: What is the difference between Section 5 and Section 12?
A: Apparently, there is no difference. But if you try to analyze it, there is a
difference. The means to discharge are the same which is either a cash deposit
or counter bond, which you find in Section 5. If you go to Section 12, pareho din
ang means which is a cash deposit or a counter bond. Tignan niyo, sino ang
hihingi ng discharge of the writ? Siyempre that party against whom the writ was
issued. A is the plaintiff and B is the defendant. If A applies for preliminary
attachment and it was issued, who seeks for the discharge? Siyempre si B. Is it
possible that A, in an instance, may also seek the discharge of the writ?
Ordinarily no, but if B as a counterclaim, which is permissive, B will ask for a writ
of preliminary attachment against A. Thus A may also seek the discharge the
writ. A can file for a counter bond.
ANGELO NIO SANTOS, CRESENTE BERNADOS, IRVIN BAUTISTA, IVY MINETTE
MENDOZA and SARAH JANE CASAUAY
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED
Section 5 speaks of a cash deposit or a counter bond. The counter bond will
answer for the judgment. The cash deposit will also answer for the judgment,
May pinagkaiba ba yun? Siyempre iba yun. Yung cash deposit, pera na yun. But
businessmen don't usually do that. What they do is through surety. And this is an
instance where surety is automatically impleaded without the requisite service of
summons in acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
The difference is, in Section 5, the writ has not been implemented but it is
already issued. In the case of Section 12, the writ has already been implemented
and custody of the property sought to be attached is already in the hands of the
sheriff. The property is already in custodia legis.
Regardless in what stage, whether the writ was just issued but not yet
implemented or is contemporaneously implemented, the defendant can
immediately file for a counter bond. The counter bond, in effect, automatically
discharges the writ.
Section 13, another means of discharging the writ by filing a motion in court
questioning the propriety or regularity of the issuance of the writ. Whether the
writ has already been implemented or not, you can avail of Section 13.
Q: What are some grounds of irregularity in the issuance?
A: Insufficiency of the bond. Remember that the requirement for the issuance are
affidavit and bond. So if the affidavit for example did not contain the required
statement as provided for in Section 3 of Rule 57, then that is an irregularity. Or it
contains but it was untruthful. It was a lie, then it is irregular.
Or suppose the bond which was filed was very insufficient. There was a claim for
P20M and the bond was only P1M. So, the issuance of the writ is irregular and
improper.
Or it was issued by the court on the ground not specifically stated in Section 1 of
Rule 57. Because the 6 grounds there are EXCLUSIVE. Wala ng iba.
Remedies are Sections 5, 12 and 13. These are the means to discharge the writ
of preliminary attachment.
Q: Can one avail of Section 12 and avail again Section 13 in the same case?
A: Yes, it can happen. If I was a businessman and a case was filed against me
and a writ of preliminary attachment was issued against my sari sari store, and
the writ is implemented, I cannot proceed with my business because it is already
in custodia legis. I cannot start selling this because the property which has been
attached is reserved for judgment. Remedy? I immediately file a counter bond,
and the writ is automatically discharged. So i can again continue in selling my
merchandise. Meanwhile when there was no writ anymore, I'll file a motion before
ANGELO NIO SANTOS, CRESENTE BERNADOS, IRVIN BAUTISTA, IVY MINETTE
MENDOZA and SARAH JANE CASAUAY
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED
RULE 58
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Provisional Remedy: Preliminary injunction
Principal Action: Injunction
We said you find an action for injunction in Section 4 in Rule 39. But seldom will
you find an action filed specifically for injunction only. It is coupled always with
other causes of action. Like damages, or recovery of property with injunction and
prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO.
Q: When do you apply?
A: We said any court has jurisdiction over injunctive relief.
It is often said that SC has no jurisdiction over an action for injunction. Of course
not, in the sense you do not file an original action with the SC. But if your action
is certiorari which is cognizable by the SC, you can ask for injunction.
Madaling intindihin ito ngayon, these are always in the papers. Ngayon,
maraming mga pulitiko ang hinahabol at dinidismiss, kaya they are all filing
injunctive relief. They are praying for annulment of the order of dismissal or
cancellation of the order of dismissal with prayer for injunction and writ of
preliminary injunction. Where do they go? To the CA because the defendant here
is the DILG. So pwede yun.
While injunction can be availed of in any court, including the SC, but if you read
cases and statements to the effect that you cannot file for an action for injunction
to the SC it is because it is not a court of original jurisdiction over this action
except certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus.
Q: What are the requirements in order for a party to file an injunction with prayer
for preliminary injunction?
A: This basic requirement is a right of the applicant.
1. First requirement: The applicant must have a right. This right must be
actual, existing and valid and not just an inchoate right or a right not in esse
(substantial).
Example of an inchoate right is the property of your parents. And you claim
to be an heir. You are not entitled to the property unless your parents die.
Your right to the property is just inchoate.
2. Second requirement: There must be a violation of that right or threatened
violation. So the violation may not be actual. It can only be a threat and you
can already seek protection through injunction.
3. Third requirement: The violation or threatened violation will result in
irreparable damage and injuries.
Take note of these three fundamental requirements.
Example is the Idolor case.
ANGELO NIO SANTOS, CRESENTE BERNADOS, IRVIN BAUTISTA, IVY MINETTE
MENDOZA and SARAH JANE CASAUAY
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED
The rules provide that when you apply for injunctive relief before a multi-sala
court, the executive judge, even before hearing the case, must give notice of
raffle. Raffle pa lang, may notice na dapat. So that if there is no notice of the
raffle date, it is already violative of the due process clause of the constitution.
Kung single sala, wala na. Ang notice mo ay notice of hearing because hearing is
mandatory. But if it is in Metro Manila or if it is a multi-sala court, 2 notices,
Notice of raffle and notice of hearing. So ang ipapadala munang notice is
when is the raffle date and your failure to attend after notice, you waive your right
to be present at the raffle. And then later on is notice of hearing.
During the hearing, the applicant should present evidence and the defendant
should present his evidence. Ordinarily, what is given is TRO. This TRO, if it is
issued by the RTC or MTC, is good only for 20 days. Upon expiration, it cannot
be renewed. It is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court to extend even
upon agreement of the parties cannot and should not be extended. In the case of
the CA, it is 60 days.
Q: Where do you count the 20 day or 60 day period as the case may be?
A: From issuance.
I would like to find out, that every TRO cannot be granted ex parte except on a
very urgent matter where the hearing can be done summarily. In the case of a
TRO which is good for 72 hours, this time from notice.
Q: Why 72 hours?
A: Kasi dito sa Pilipinas, ordinarily non-working day ang Saturday and Sunday.
So hindi pwedeng 48 hours baka kasi pumatak dun sa Saturday or Sunday. Kaya
72 hours because it is 3 days, kahit yun pumasok ng friday ng hapon, papatak
yun ng lunes. O pag binigay yang ng saturday, papatak pa din yan ng lunes.
If the court continues your 72 hour TRO to a full 20 day TRO, the 72 hours will be
included in the 20 days. This time counted from the issuance of the TRO of the
72 hours.
Q: Why 20 days?
A: It is because this is roughly 3 weeks. And within a 3 week period, the court
must hear whether or not to grant the writ of preliminary injunction. The court is a
very busy body and you cannot set it for hearing immediately because there are
other cases filed before it.
Q: How do you discharge the writ?
A: You cannot discharge the writ through a counter bond. The only way is to
question the propriety or regularity of the issuance. But even then, chances are it
will just be denied. Kaya pag na issue ang TRO for 20 days, wait ka na lang after
that period. That's why it's not that long because it is really to be threshed out
ANGELO NIO SANTOS, CRESENTE BERNADOS, IRVIN BAUTISTA, IVY MINETTE
MENDOZA and SARAH JANE CASAUAY
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED
RULE 59 RECEIVERSHIP
When we talked about receivership it is both a provisional remedy and a principal
action. Although it can happen that receivership is attached as a provisional
remedy to an action for a recovery.
Q: What is the principal action for receivership?
A: If the receivership is used as a provisional remedy, the principal action here is
for recovery of property whether real or personal.
Q: What would be the jurisdiction?
A: Jurisdiction shall depend upon the principal action. It can be taken cognizance
by the inferior court or the regional trial court. You cannot file it to the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court. You only file original actions in the SC or CA in a
very peculiar actions and we already know that when we studied jurisdictions.
Concurrent jurisdictions like certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus.
Q: If you file an annulment of judgment of the MTC, where will you file it?
A: We do not apply Rule 47 because it is for the order of the Regional Trial
Court, we apply the general rule that no actions on appeal can go to the CA or
SC because it is a judgment of MTC. RTC has jurisdiction even though it is
annulment of judgment.
If receivership can be taken cognizance depending on the principal action, but if
the principal action is receivership itself since receivership may be the principal
action. While preliminary injunction can never be the principal action, what is the
principal action there is injunction. In receivership it may be a principal action or
provisional remedy. If it is a provisional action it must attached to a principal
action which is recovery. But unlike attachment, Sec. 1 Rule 57, states the
grounds for attachment. Sec. 1 Rule 59 also gives the different kinds of instances
where you can apply for receivership.
Q: What are these instances?
A: Sec. 1 Rule 59
a. When it appears from the verified application, and such other proof as
the court may require, that the party applying for the appointment of a
receiver has an interest in the property or fund which is the subject of
the action or proceeding, and that such property or fund is in danger of
being lost, removed, or materially injured unless a receiver be
appointed to administer and preserve it;
b. When it appears in an action by the mortgagee for the foreclosure of a
mortgage that the property is in danger of being wasted or dissipated
or materially injured, and that its value is probably insufficient to
ANGELO NIO SANTOS, CRESENTE BERNADOS, IRVIN BAUTISTA, IVY MINETTE
MENDOZA and SARAH JANE CASAUAY
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED
Rule 60 Replevin
Q: What is the principal action?
A: Recovery of possession of PERSONAL property
Q: Which court has jurisdiction?
A: MTC or RTC depending upon the value of the property because technically
replevin is only a provisional remedy.
Note: only receivership may only be a principal action but replevin will always be
a provisional remedy.
Q: What are the grounds for application of replevin?
A: Sec. 2
a. That the applicant is he owner of the property claimed, particularly
describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof;
b. That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging
the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief;
c. That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of
execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under
custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or
custody; and
d. That actual market value of the property is stated in the affidavit.
Q: If A sold a lot to B, then B caused the titling of the property fraudulently in his
favor can A ask for recovery of the property being entitled to the recovery of the
property?
A: No, because replevin only applies to personal property.
The other provisional remedies we studied so far, you apply for the provisional
remedy from the commencement of the action or before judgment and even after
judgment in the case of receivership. But in replevin it should be availed of before
answer.
Q: Why should replevin can only be availed of before answer? Why would an
answer disqualify an application for replevin? After answer it cannot be applied
for anymore, why?
A: When an answer is filed issues are joined and because issues are joined, the
court already knows whether the applicant is entitled to the ownership or
possession. So hindi na igagrant ng court, kaya it must be before the answer
because it is an immediate remedy.
Yung 3rd party claim, the same provision yun, the same application. In other
words, thru an affidavit furnishing the same to the sheriff, the sheriff is entitled to
deliver it to the 3rd party claimant unless the applicant puts up another bond. So
thrice na lahat, the value of the property.
Do you recall the peculiarity in what we studied in the writ of execution? Under
Rule 39, when there is a 3rd party claim, during the auction sale, even if the
purchaser is the judgment obligee he has to pay. Ordinarily, the judgment
obligee, if he is the purchaser during an auction sale pursuant to an execution he
does not have to pay. But if there is a 3rd party claim, then he has to pay. Why?
Because precisely the ownership is in question.
Dito naman delivery until you put up another bond equivalent to the value of the
property.
While the property now is in the hands of the applicant, the main action should
proceed and what should be the judgment? Important to.
Orosa case
Sec. 9 only in the alternative. Hindi pwede yung 2 ang ibigay.
Q: What are the alternative decisions here?
A: It is either give the property or pay the value.
The best example of replevin is buying a car. But most buyers dont buy in cash
almost everyone is buying thru installment. Here you are not the owner yet, when
the car is given to you, you execute a mortgage, mortgaging the same car to the
seller. Read the contract, it always has a clause in default, if it says there that if
you default for example 2 months of payment, the seller will have the right to
foreclose the mortgage judicially or extrajudicially. Here, the foreclosure will
always carry a prayer for replevin and the seller is willing to pay twice as much as
the value of the property because the bond is not a cash bond but merely a
surety. Once they foreclose they get the car, complying with all the requirements.
Once they recover it after the case, the same car shall be resold.
Replevin as well as attachment is known as custodia legis. Property which has
been attached can no longer be the subject of replevin, but a property replevined
can be the subject of attachment minus/less delivery. Note parehong may
delivery, pag replevin kinuha na, pero pwede mo pang iattach without delivery
because in attachment you also take but first right sa replevin, di mo na pwede
kunin yun. But you can attach, because attachment simply furnish him with the
copy of the order. So ano ka? Subsequent lien holder ka dun. The attaching
creditor shall be a subsequent lien holder. Replevin replevin no attachment
attachment yes why? Because it depends upon the value, if the value of the
property for example a 100 square meter property in makati worth 2m and it was
ANGELO NIO SANTOS, CRESENTE BERNADOS, IRVIN BAUTISTA, IVY MINETTE
MENDOZA and SARAH JANE CASAUAY
UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED
Certiorari
Any aggrieved
party
TBO
Grounds
1. Lack of
jurisdiction
2. Excess of
jurisdiction
3. Grave abuse of
discretion
amounting to lack
of jurisdiction
Judicial/quasi
judicial functions
(discretionary)
1. No appeal
2. No plain,
speedy, adequate
remedy in the
ordinary course of
law
To annul/void
judgment or final
order
Functions of
respondents
Conditions
Judgment
Prohibition
Same
Tribunal, Board,
Officer, Person,
Corporation
Same
Mandamus
same
TBOPC
1. Neglect in the
performance of
the act enjoined
by the law
2. Unlawfully
excludes the
enjoyment of an
office or franchise
Same + ministerial Same as
functions
prohibition
Same
To cease and
desist
Order to do but
may award
damages
FORCIBLE ENTRY
Possession is illegal from the beginning