MARIANO T. NASSER vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MALCOLM SARMIENTO, in his capacity as Presidin !

"d e, C#"rt #$ First Instance #$ Pa%pan a, &ranch I, AURORA RI'ERA CANLAS, PATERNO R. CANLAS, and TOMAS CENTILLAS Facts( 1. Petitioner Nasser was a lessee in several haciendas in Davao Oriental, owned by the Estate of Don Amadeo Matute Olave. 2. Matias Matute, co administrator of the Olave Estate e!ecuted "1#an ori$inal %ontract of &ease dated 'eb1(,1)*+ e!,irin$ on Au$1(,1)-( and "2#a .u,,lemental %ontract for a ,eriod of + years after the e!,iration of the ori$inal contract. /oth contracts are in faor of Petitioner Nasser. 0. A,r2+,1)** 1 Pet. Nasser e!ecuted 0 ,romissory notes, in favor of Matute, amountin$ to 21),(((. 3. 'eb-,1)*- 1 Matute assi$ned, sold, transferred and set over to 4es,ondent Aurora 4ivera 1 %anlas, all above described ,romissory notes with e!,ress conformity of Pet. Nasser. +. Pet. Nasser mana$ed to buy the hereditary shares of the Matute heirs for an amount of **(,(((. *. Out of the ,romissory notes, ,et. Nasser had a balance of *)-,(1*.++ which was un,aid. -. 4es,ondent Aurora filed a com,laint for sum of money with A,,lication for 5rit of Preliminary Attachment before the %'6 Pam,an$a. 6t was $ranted u,on a bond of 2(,((( ,ut u, by res,ondents. 2. .heriff of Manila issued a notice of $arnishment a$ainst Nasser. ). 7,on the motion by %anlas s,ouses, 4es,ondent 8ud$e .armiento issued an order e!ecutin$ the Order of attachment until the balance of *)-,(1* is reali9ed. 1(. %hief of Police attached the ,etitioner:s ,ro,ert e!ce,t for the leasehold ri$hts which were e!em,t from the e!ecution. 11. Pet. Nasser filed an ur$ent Motion to Dismiss, the $round of which is 6m,ro,er ;enue, and another motion which is Motion to Dissolve the Order of Attachment on the $round that it was im,ro,erly issued. 4es,ondent %anlas s,ouses o,,osed the motions. /oth motions of Nasser were denied by 4es,ondent 8ud$e. 6nstead of an answer, ,et. Nasser filed an ur$ent Motion for 4econsideration. 12. 4es,ondent 8ud$e declared Pet. Nasser in default, allowin$ the 4es,ondent %anlas s,ouses to ,resent evidence e! ,arte. Ne!t day, res,ondent <ud$e ordered <ud$ment in favor of the %anlas s,ouses and ,ayment of Pet. Nasser of the sum of money ,lus interest. 10. 4es,ondent 8ud$e motu ,ro,rio set aside the order of default, a,,earin$ Nasser havin$ filed an 7r$ent E! ,arte Motion to &ift the Order of Default. 13. Pet. Nasser filed in the lower court another ur$ent motion settin$ aside and revo=in$ the order of 4es,ondent 8ud$e on the earlier decision. 4es,. %anlas s,ouses o,,osed. Pet. Nasser filed a >re,ly? 1+. 4es,ondent 8ud$e issued two orders "1#holdin$ in abeyance the resolution of the motion relievin$ the %hief of Police "2# denyin$ the M4 of Petition Nasser. 1*. Petitioner Nasser filed a ,etition for certiorari directly to .%. .c remanded the case to the %A. 1-. %A 1 denied Nasser:s ,etition. 12. Meanwhile, durin$ an earlier date, Pet. Nasser filed in a co e@ual court of Davao Oriental a com,laint for in<unction a$ainst %hiefs of Police of Aeneroso and .an 6sidro. 1). %hiefs of Police filed an o,,osition on the $round that the %'6 Davao Oriental lac=s <urisdiction and the com,laint has no cause of action. 2(. On the same court, Pet. Nasser filed an annulment of ,romissory notes a$ainst the %anlas s,ouses. Nasser also filed a su,,lemental com,laint with 7r$ent Motion for a $rant of a writ of Preliminary 6n<unction E! ,arte and 7r$ent Motion for 4estrainin$ Order. /oth motions were $ranted by the %'6 Davao Oriental 8ud$e /ullecer. 21. %anlas s,ouses and %hiefs of Police filed a ,etition for certiorari before the %A a$ainst 8ud$e /ullecer. %A ruled in favor of %anlas s,ouses and %hiefs of Police. 22. .everal alle$ed to be dummies of Nasser filed cases before %'6 Davao Oriental 8ud$e /ullecer a$ainst res,ondents. 20. %A issued an order en<oinin$ the %'6 Davao Oriental from entertainin$ cases concernin$ the im,edin$ and obstruction of %'6 1 Pam,an$a:s writ of ,reliminary in<unction. 23. %A rendered decision ma=in$ ,ermanent the %'6 1 Pam,an$a:s writ of ,reliminary in<unction. 2+. Petitioner Nasser filed M4. Denied. Bence, this ,etition. ISSUE( 5ON the writ of ,reliminary attachment issued by the %'6 1 Pam,an$a "in favor of %anlas# may be en<oined in the decision of %'6 1 Davao Oriental "in favor of Nasser# 1 ,rimary issue of the case

5ON the a,,ointment of the %hief of Police of Aovernor Aeneroso, Davao Oriental as .,ecial .heriff to serve and im,lement the Order of Attachment was erroneous 1 issue in relation to 4ule +HEL)( No. 6t is doctrinal that no court has the ,ower to interfere by in<unction with the <ud$ment or order of another court of concurrent or coordinate <urisdiction "N$o /un Cion$ v. .ayo, 1*0 .%4A 20- D1)22EF 6nvestors 'inance %or,oration v. Ebarle, 1*0 .%4A *( D1)22EF Munici,ality of Malolos v. &iban$an$ Malolos, 6nc., 1*3 .%4A 2)( D1)22E# No. 6t is li=ewise evident that res,ondent <ud$e did not err in de,uti9in$ the %hief of Police of Aovernor Aeneroso, as s,ecial sheriff under .ection 2, 4ule +- of the 4evised 4ules of %ourt where the former is e!,ressly authori9ed to re@uire not only the sheriff but also other officers of the ,rovince or the sheriffs or other ,ro,er officers of different ,rovinces in this case, the %hief of Police of Aovernor Aeneroso, to attach all the ,ro,erties of the ,arty a$ainst whom it may be issued within the ,rovince not e!em,t from e!ecution. 'inally, it is settled that a verified statement incor,orated in the com,laint without a se,arate affidavit is sufficient and valid to obtain the attachment "Colentino v. %arla, et al., ** Phil. 13( 130#. Chus, under the same rulin$, the verified com,laint in the case at bar entitled GA,,lication for a 5rit of Preliminary AttachmentG which s,ecifically stated that to avoid redundancy and re,etition, the affidavit of the ,laintiffs as re@uired under .ection 0, 4ule +- of the 4evised 4ules of %ourt is dis,ensed with, as the matters to be treated and contained therein are already incor,orated and made ,art of the com,laint, duly verified by them, has undoubtedly substantially com,lied with the re@uirements of the 4ules and the court to which the a,,lication for the attachment was filed has <urisdiction to issue the writ ,rayed for "%entral %a,i9 v. .alas, 30 Phil., 0( D1)22E#. Petition Dismissed for lac= of merit. %A decision is affirmed.