CASE DIGEST

Mangila v. CA
Remedial Law Review

Court Supreme Court First Division

Citation GR No. 125027

Date August 12, 2002

Petitioner Anita Mangila

Respondent Court of Appeals and Loreta Guina

Ponente Carpio, J.

Topic Rule 57-61

Doctrine Preliminary Attachment

The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages: (1) the court
issues the order granting the application; (2) the writ of attachment issues pursuant to
the order granting the writ; and (3) the writ is implemented.

For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ
commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for without
such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against
the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.

Prepared by Dan

FACTS:

● Mangila was engaged in the business of exporting sea foods while Guina was engaged in the freight
forwarding business. Mangila contracted the freight forwarding services of Guina for the shipment of the
former’s products.
● Mangila failed to pay Guina for several shipments, despite demand by the latter. This compelled Guina to file
an action for collection of a sum of money against Mangila before the Pasay City RTC.
● The sheriff failed to serve summons on Mangila and found out that the latter had already left the Philippines
for Guam. Construing Mangila’s departure as done with intent to defraud her creditors, Guina filed a Motion for
Preliminary Attachment. The court granted the motion and issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment.
● The Notice of Levy, Order, Affidavit, and Bond were served on Mangila’s household help in San Fernando,
Pampanga. Mangila filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment arguing that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over her since she had not been served a copy of the Complaint and the summons.
● The Urgent Motion was later granted upon the filing of a bond by Mangila. Thereafter, Guina applied for an
alias summons and summons was eventually served on Mangila.
● The RTC ultimately ruled in favor of Guina. Guina filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal but was
denied. The CA affirmed the RTC and sustained the validity of the issuance of the writ of attachment.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE #1 HELD

WON the writ of attachment was properly issued and served

1
CASE DIGEST
Mangila v. CA
Remedial Law Review
RATIO:
- Petitioner ascribes several errors to the issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment.
1. There was no ground for the issuance of the writ since the intent to defraud her creditors had not been
established;
2. The value of the properties levied exceeded the value of private respondent’s claim.
3. However, the crux of petitioner’s arguments rests on the question of the validity of the writ of attachment.
Because of failure to serve summons on her before or simultaneously with the writ’s implementation,
petitioner claims that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over her person and thus the service of
the writ is void.
- Distinction should be made between issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment.
o It is necessary to distinguish between the two to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant should be acquired to validly implement the writ. This distinction is crucial in resolving
whether there is merit in petitioner’s argument.
o This Court has long settled the issue of when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be
acquired in cases where a party resorts to provisional remedies. A party to a suit may, at any time
after filing the complaint, avail of the provisional remedies under the Rules of Court.
o Specifically, Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy "at the
commencement of the action or at any time thereafter." This phrase refers to the date of filing of the
complaint which is the moment that marks "the commencement of the action." The reference plainly is
to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues.
o In Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court clarified the actual time when
jurisdiction should be had: "It goes without saying that whatever be the acts done by the Court prior to
the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant - issuance of summons, order of
attachment and writ of attachment - these do not and cannot bind and affect the defendant until and
unless jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained by the court, either by service on him of
summons or other coercive process or his voluntary submission to the court’s authority. Hence, when
the sheriff or other proper officer commences implementation of the writ of attachment, it is essential
that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the applicant’s affidavit and attachment bond, and of
the order of attachment, as explicitly required by Section 5 of Rule 57, but also the summons
addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of the complaint..."
- Furthermore, we have held that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages:
1. The court issues the order granting the application;
2. The writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and
3. The writ is implemented.

o For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first
obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired
jurisdiction over the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act
in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.

- In the instant case, the Writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued on September 27, 1988 and implemented
on October 28, 1988. However, the alias summons was served only on January 26, 1989 or almost three
months after the implementation of the writ of attachment.
o The trial court had the authority to issue the Writ of Attachment on September 27 since a motion for its
issuance can be filed "at the commencement of the action."
o However, on the day the writ was implemented, the trial court should have, previously or
simultaneously with the implementation of the writ, acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner. Yet, as
was shown in the records of the case, the summons was actually served on petitioner several months
after the writ had been implemented.
- Private respondent claims that the prior or contemporaneous service of summons contemplated in Section 5
of Rule 57 provides for exceptions. Among such exceptions are "where the summons could not be served
personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts or where the defendant is a resident temporarily
absent therefrom…"
o Private respondent asserts that when she commenced this action, she tried to serve summons on
petitioner but the latter could not be located at her customary address in Kamuning, Quezon City or at
her new address in Guagua, Pampanga. Furthermore, respondent claims that petitioner was not even
in Pampanga; rather, she was in Guam purportedly on a business trip.
o Private respondent never showed that she effected substituted service on petitioner after her personal
service failed. Likewise, if it were true that private respondent could not ascertain the whereabouts of
petitioner after a diligent inquiry, still she had some other recourse under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
o The rules provide for certain remedies in cases where personal service could not be effected on a
party. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that whenever the defendant’s "whereabouts

2
CASE DIGEST
Mangila v. CA
Remedial Law Review
are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected
upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation…"
o Thus, if petitioner’s whereabouts could not be ascertained after the sheriff had served the summons at
her given address, then respondent could have immediately asked the court for service of summons
by publication on petitioner.
o Moreover, as private respondent also claims that petitioner was abroad at the time of the service of
summons, this made petitioner a resident who is temporarily out of the country. This is the exact
situation contemplated in Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, providing for service of
summons by publication.
- In conclusion, we hold that the alias summons belatedly served on petitioner cannot be deemed to have cured
the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ.
o The trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process on petitioner without first obtaining jurisdiction
over her person. The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the
service of summons on the defendant whether by personal service, substituted service or by
publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case.
o The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her
person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED on the grounds of improper venue and invalidity of the service of the writ of
attachment. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of respondent judge denying the motion to dismiss are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 5875 is hereby dismissed without prejudice to refiling it in the proper
venue. The attached properties of petitioner are ordered returned to her immediately.