Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan – G.R. No. 139941, January 19, 2001


What can the herein petitioner do to quash the attachment of the Letters of Credit?

There are two courses of action available to the petitioner to discharge the Writ of Preliminary Attachment:

First. To file a counterbond in accordance with Rule 57, Section 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving counterbond. Or Second. To quash the attachment on the ground that it was irregularly or improvidently issued, as provided for in Section 13 Discharge of attachment for improper or irregular issuance. To attack the issuance of the writ at that time as improper or irregular, the rule contemplates that the defect must be in the very issuance of the attachment writ. For instance, the attachment may be discharged under Section 13 of Rule 57 when it is proven that the allegations of the complaint were deceptively framed, or when the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Supervening events which may or may not justify the discharge of the writ are not within the purview of this particular rule.

To reiterate, there are only two ways of quashing a writ of attachment: (a) by filing a counterbond immediately; or (b) by moving to quash on the ground of improper and irregular issuance. These grounds for the dissolution of an attachment are fixed in Rule 57 of the Rules of Court and the power of the Court to dissolve an attachment is circumscribed by the grounds specified therein. Petitioner’s motion to lift attachment failed to demonstrate any infirmity or defect in the issuance of the writ of attachment; neither did he file a counterbond.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: