Master Tours and Travel vs.

CA
G.R. No. 105409

March 1, 1993

Padilla, J.:
FACTS:
On February 28, 191, summons, together with a copy of the complaint for sum of money filed by
the private respondent, Cathay and an order of attachment dated February 21, 1991 were served upon
and received by petitioner. Pursuant to the order the Sheriff immediately lovied upon properties of the
petitioner, with value equivalent to Cathays claim. Master Tours moved to set aside the order because
there was no prior notice on hearing before the issuance of the writ. Allegedly, respondent coerced
petitioner to enter into a compromise agreement. Petitioner however, filed a motion to dismiss the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a writ preliminary attachment issued by the trial court, ex parte prior to notice and
hearing proper?
RULING:
A preliminary attachment may be defined as the provisional remedy in virtue of which a plaintiff
may 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 pirely statutory in respect of which the law requires a strict construction of
the provisions granting it.
On the issue of the permissibility of withdrawing a compromise agreement which has not been
approved by court. The rule is that a judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is
immediately executory unless a motion is filed to set aside the agreement on ground of fraud, mistake or
duress in which case, appeal may be taken against the order denying the motion. The compromise
agreement in question, is a valid document binding not only on the Executive VP, but also on the
defendant corporation itself. It is not vitiated by what the EUP and the lawyer representing both call-lack
of authority and threat and intimiolation that compelled them to sign it. The propriety or impropriety of
withdrawing the compromise agreement is more of a question of fact than of law.