Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50707:gr-171124-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:37:14+00:00

Document:
ALEJANDRO NG WEE, Petitioner, v. MANUEL TANKIANSEE, Respondent.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the September 14, 2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 90130 and its January 6, 2006 Resolution2 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY RESPONDENT, SINCE IT MERELY RAISED ERRORS IN JUDGMENT, WHICH, UNDER PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE, ARE NOT THE PROPER SUBJECTS OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
MOREOVER, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR IN RESOLVING FAVORABLY THE GROUNDS ALLEGED BY RESPONDENT IN HIS PETITION AND (SIC) LIFTING THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT, SINCE THESE GROUNDS ALREADY RELATE TO THE MERITS OF CIVIL CASE NO. 00-99006 WHICH, UNDER PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE, CANNOT BE USED AS BASIS (SIC) FOR DISCHARGING A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT.
We agree with respondent's contentions and deny the petition.
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof.
In the instant case, petitioner's October 12, 2000 Affidavit34 is bereft of any factual statement that respondent committed a fraud. The affidavit narrated only the alleged fraudulent transaction between Wincorp and Virata and/or Power Merge, which, by the way, explains why this Court, in G.R. No. 162928, affirmed the writ of attachment issued against the latter. As to the participation of respondent in the said transaction, the affidavit merely states that respondent, an officer and director of Wincorp, connived with the other defendants in the civil case to defraud petitioner of his money placements. No other factual averment or circumstance details how respondent committed a fraud or how he connived with the other defendants to commit a fraud in the transaction sued upon. In other words, petitioner has not shown any specific act or deed to support the allegation that respondent is guilty of fraud.
Considering, therefore, that, in this case, petitioner has not fully satisfied the legal obligation to show the specific acts constitutive of the alleged fraud committed by respondent, the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it issued the writ of preliminary attachment against the properties of respondent.
However, the principle finds no application here because petitioner has not yet fulfilled the requirements set by the Rules of Court for the issuance of the writ against the properties of respondent.47 The evil sought to be prevented by the said ruling will not arise, because the propriety or impropriety of the issuance of the writ in this case can be determined by simply reading the complaint and the affidavit in support of the application.
Furthermore, our ruling in G.R. No. 162928, to the effect that the writ of attachment is properly issued insofar as it concerns the properties of Virata and UEM-MARA, does not affect respondent herein, for, as correctly ruled by the CA, respondent is "never a party thereto."48 Also, he is not in the same situation as Virata and UEM-MARA since, as aforesaid, while petitioner's affidavit detailed the alleged fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Virata and/or Power Merge, only a general allegation of fraud was made against respondent.
We state, in closing, that our ruling herein deals only with the writ of preliminary attachment issued against the properties of respondent-it does not concern the other parties in the civil case, nor affect the trial court's resolution on the merits of the aforesaid civil case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The September 14, 2005 Decision and the January 6, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90130 are AFFIRMED.
* In lieu of Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario per Special Order No. 484 dated January 11, 2008.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios (deceased) and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; rollo, pp. 44-55.
3 Id. at 61-63, 650.
4 Id. at 63-67, 650-652.
5 Id. at 67-71, 652-653.
7 Id. at 60. The other defendants in the civil case are Luis Juan L. Virata, Power Merge Corporation, UEM Development Philippines, Inc., UEM-MARA Philippines Corporation, United Engineers (Malaysia) Berhad, Majlis Amanah Rakyat, Renong Berhad, Westmont Investment Corporation, Antonio T. Ong, Anthony A.T. Reyes, Simeon S. Cua, Mariza Santos-Tan, Vicente T. Cualoping, Henry T. Cualoping, Manuel A. Estrella and John Anthony B. Espiritu.
4.1. Money placements with Wincorp would earn more interest than an ordinary savings or time deposit of the same amount with Westmont Bank.
4.2. Money placements with Wincorp are profitable, stable and secure because the funds are loaned to borrowers who are extensively screened and who are required to provide sufficient security in accordance with generally accepted banking standards and practices like those observed by Westmont Bank.
4.3. Wincorp is stable since Wincorp and Westmont Bank were owned or controlled by the same shareholders and thus, has the backing of Westmont Bank.
4.4. Being a depositor of Westmont Bank, I could easily make or withdraw my money placements by merely instructing Westmont Bank and Wincorp to transfer the funds from my accounts and remit the same to the other.
5. Relying on said representations, I placed substantial amounts of money in my own name and in the names of others with Wincorp on several occasions. Some of my outstanding placements with Wincorp, which were loaned by Wincorp, are in the names of Robert Tabada Tan, Elizabeth Ng Wee, Alex Lim Tan and Angela Archangel who hold said placements in trust for me.
6. Each money placement I gave to Wincorp and Wincorp's receipt thereof is evidenced by a confirmation advice issued by Wincorp.
7. I was assured by the officers of Wincorp with whom I transacted that upon maturity of each money placement, the maturity value thereof can be withdrawn from Wincorp or the same can be "rolled over" as principal for another money placement at the prevailing interest rate at the time of the roll-over. I was also assured by the officers of Wincorp that they would allow me, being a valued client, to pre-terminate my accounts/placements if I needed to withdraw the proceeds thereof before their maturity dates. However, I would usually roll-over most of the placements, upon the advice and enticement of Wincorp.
8. Sometime in February 2000, I received disturbing news about the financial condition and the questionable operations of Wincorp and its borrowers.
9. Considering that I had sizeable placements with Wincorp, I conducted inquiries and investigated the veracity of the news reports.
11. It must be noted that my money placements were transferred to the loan account of Power Merge by Wincorp and its officers/directors, without my prior knowledge and consent. Later, however, through false representations by Wincorp and its officers/directors, I was enticed to roll over the placements which were loaned to Virata/Power Merge because I was made to believe that the latter were not in default of their loan obligations; otherwise, Wincorp and its officers/directors would not have renewed the loans or grant additional loans to Virata/Power Merge.
13. Said money placements have all matured and are now all past due and owing.
15. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that I have a sufficient cause of action for the payment of the outstanding loan obligation to me in the principal amount of Two Hundred Ten Million Five Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-One and 62/100 Pesos (P210,595,991.62), plus all stipulated interests, liquidated damages and attorney's fees against Power Merge and Virata who beneficially owns all the shares of stock of the latter and who personally used and/or benefited from my placements/funds. I also have a cause of action against Wincorp and its officers and directors considering that the damage and prejudice to me could not have been caused without their participation and connivance with Virata/Power Merge in granting loans to the latter using my funds/placements.
16. From the foregoing facts, it clearly appears that the acts of Wincorp and its officers and directors in granting loans to Virata/Power Merge using my funds/placements with the latter having no intention nor capacity to pay said loan obligation, constitute fraud both in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation, and in the performance thereof under Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.
17. There is no other security for my legitimate claims in the principal amount of at least Two Hundred Ten Million Five Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-One and 62/100 Pesos (P210,595,991.62), plus all stipulated interests, liquidated damages and attorney's fees, which amount is likewise the amount to which I am entitled and for which the order of attachment is sought above all legal counterclaims.
11 Id. at 390-393. This is respondent's first motion to discharge the attachment.
16 Id. at 419-433. The August 21, 2003 Decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 74610 was penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale, with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador concurring.
20 Id. at 448-461. This is respondent's second motion to discharge the attachment.
30 See Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Dy, G.R. No. 156887, October 3, 2005, 472 SCRA 1, 9-12.
31 Spouses Godinez v. Hon. Alano, 362 Phil. 597, 609 (1999).
32 G.R. No. 104405, May 13, 1993, 222 SCRA 37.
35 Jardine-Manila Finance, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 55272, April 10, 1989, 171 SCRA 636, 645.
36 See Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, 405 Phil. 271, 280 (2001).
37 See PCL Industries Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147970, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 214, 222-226.
38 Ting v. Villarin, G.R. No. 61754, August 17, 1989, 176 SCRA 532, 535.
39 Benitez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-71535, September 15, 1987, 154 SCRA 41, 46.
40 Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation, G.R. No. 153535, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 409, 424-425.
41 Benitez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra note 39, at 48.
42 D.P. Lub Oil Marketing Center, Inc. v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 76113, November 16, 1990, 191 SCRA 423, 428.
43 Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, supra note 36, at 282.
44 Benitez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra note 39, at 48.
45 98 Phil. 886 (1956); see Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, 402 Phil. 795, 816 (2001); see also FCY Construction Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 282 (2000).
47 See Villongco, et al. v. Panlilio etc., et al., 94 Phil. 15 (1953).
48 CA rollo, p. 341.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.