DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the instint Petition is DENIED. The August 13, 2014 Decision and February 11, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA[1]G.R. SP No. 04133-MIN holding that Duma.ran failed to meet the requirements of the law regarding fraud to sµstain the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

DUMARAN WAS OPERATING GAS STATIONS. HE SUPPLIED LLAMEDO ET AL WITH GASOLINE AND DIESEL. THE LATTER OWNED DUMARAN P7M PLUS. THEIR CHECK BOUNCED. DUMARAN WAS ABLE TO SECURE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT FROM RTC. BUT CA QUASHED THE WRIT. SUPREME COURT SAID QUASHAL IS PROPER BECAUSE DUMARAN FAILED TO ALLEGED SPECIFICS SHOWING THAT AT THE BEGINNING HE WAS DEFRAUDED INTO SUPPLYING THEM WITH GASONLINE AND DIESEL.

The CA rightfully held that Dumaran’s allegations in both his Complaint and Affidavit failed to show that Dumaran was defrauded into accepting the offer of Llamedo, Magallanes and Cubeta; and that Llamedo, Magallanes and Cubeta intended from the beginning to not pay their obligations. The Complaint and Affidavit did not specifically show wrongful acts or willful omissions that Llamedo, Magallanes and Cubeta knowingly committed to deceive Dumaran to enter into the contract or to perform the obligation. The pleadings filed lacked the particulars of time, persons and places to support the serious assertions that Llamedo, Magallanes and Cubeta were disposing of their properties to defraud Dumaran.

………………………………

The Court, though not a trier of facts, perused through the records of the case and agrees with the findings of the CA that the allegations ofDumaran do not meet the requirements of the law regarding fraud. The case of Republic v. Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. 28 explained the term “fraud” as related to the above-mentioned legal provision in this wise:

Fraud may be characterized as the voluntary execution of a wrongful act or a willful omission, while knowing and intending the effects that naturally and necessarily arise from that act or omission. In its general sense, fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive – including all acts and omission and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed – resulting in damage to or in undue advantage over another. Fraud is also described as embracing all multifarious means that human ingenuity can device, and is resorted to for the purpose of securing an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth; and it includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any other unfair way by which another is cheated.

While fraud cannot be presumed, it need not be proved by direct evidence and can well be inferred from attendant circumstances. Fraud by its nature is not a thing susceptible of ocular observation or readily demonstrable physically; it must of necessity be proved in many cases by inferences from circumstances shown to have been involved in the transaction in question.29 (Emphasis supplied)

DUMARAN SAID THAT THE WRIT CANNOT BE QUASHED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS DID NOT FILE COUNTER-BOND. SUPREME COURT SAID COUNTER-BOND IS NOT NECESSARY. THE CA HAD ALREADY RULED THAT DUMARAN FAILED TO PROVE THAT FRAUD EXISTED, THUS, THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT ISSUED BY THE RTC WAS A ”TOO HARSH” PROVISIONAL REMEDY THAT MUST BE DENIED.

On the other hand, Llamedo, Magallanes and Cubeta averred that the cited FCY Construction case is not applicable to their case because the parties in FCY Construction had not yet proven the falsity of the factual averments in the applicant’s application for a writ of preliminary attachment and supporting affidavits. Thus, a regular full-blown trial to prove the falsity of the factual averments and subsequently, the irregularity of the writ of preliminary attachment in accordance with Rule 57, Section 13 was still necessary to allow the discharge of the writ of preliminary attachment. Otherwise, absent a regular full-blown trial, the only way a writ of preliminary attachment can be dissolved is by filing a counter-bond or cash deposit u11der Rule 57, Section 12.

However, in the case at bar, Llarnedo, Magallanes a.’ld Cubeta alleged that the CA had aln;;ady found and ruled that the writ of preliminary attachment was improperly issued. The CA had already ruled that Dumaran failed to prove that fraud existed, thus, the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the RTC was a ”too harsh” provisional remedy that must be denied.

The Court agrees with the contention of Llamedo, Magalhmes and Cubeta. . . .

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.