16 QUASHA ASPERILLA ANCHETA VALMONTE PEÑA & MARCOS, petitioner, vs.
THE HONORABLE CELESTINO P. P. JUAN, FILIPINAS CARRIERS, INC., represene! "# $s Pres$!en, FE%ERICO TABORA, JR., APOLLO OIN TRA%IN' CO., LT%., e ()., respondents. '.R. N*. L+-1 N*/e0"er 1-, 1-2 FACTS: Respondent Filipinas Carriers, hereinafter referred to as Filcar, filed a complaint for sum of money, enforcement of lien and damages with the Court of First Instance of anila, and the same was assigned to !ranch ", which was presided #y respondent $udge, against A! Charles Thor#urn % Co. In the complaint which was doc&eted as Civil Case 'o. ()*)+, Filcar alleged that it is the disponent owner of a vessel, San -icente, which was duly registered with the Repu#lic of the hilippines. /efendant Charles Thor#urn % Co. chartered said vessel #y time charter for two or three months for a voyage from Sweden to $eddah, Saudi Ara#ia at three thousand two hundred 0S dollars 10S 23,4)).))5 a day day.. After the second month, Charles Thor#urn failed to pay the daily hire. 6n demand, !aroom, the agent of Thor#urn in $eddah, and the consignees and shippers refused to pay that conse7uently, forced Filcar to e8ercise its lien on the cargoes consistent with Clause ( of the Charter arty, notice of which was sent to defendants. 6n /ecem#er 4, (9;, Filcar filed an e8tra
and that the goods su#=ect of its lien were in danger of deteriorating and losing their mar&et value and if the goods were not sold immediately, the plaintiff would have to pay a staggering amount for warehousing warehousing so that the value of the goods would not even #e enough to pay for warehousing warehousing e8penses. The respondent $udge, after conducting hearings and ocular inspection, granted the motion. 6n Fe#ruary (, (9, petitioner filed #efore the Court of First Instance of Ri?al a complaint with a prayer pra yer for a wri writt of pre prelim limina inary ry att attach achmen mentt for the rec recove overy ry of pro profes fessio sional nal fee fees s and rei reim#u m#urse rsemen mentt of e8penses against !aroom whom it alleged to have represented in Civil Case 'o. ()*)+, CFI, anila. !y virtue of the order dated Fe#ruary 4, (9, petitioner o#tained a writ of preliminary attachment against !aroom@s alleged cargoes which is the su#=ect matter in Civil Case 'o. ()*)+. 6n August 4*, (9, respondent $udge issued an order approving the sale of the cargo in 7uestion to Apollo o&in Trading Trading Co., Btd. In accordance with with the earlier order of April 4, (9, respondent $udge directed the deposit of the sale proceeds with a #an&ing institution to #e approved #y the Court and its disposition only on orders of the Court. 6 Thus, petitioner, on 6cto#er 43, (9, filed #efore this Court the instant petition. etitioner assails the order of August 4*, (9 approving the sale in favor of Apollo o&in Trading Co., Btd. of the 7uestioned cargo for having #een issued in grave a#use of discretion considering that su#=ect cargo was allegedly earlier attached #y the Court of First Instance of Ri?al. ISS0S: 1(5 D6' the order approving the sale was issued in grave a#use of discretion considering that su#=ect cargo was allegedly earlier attached #y the CFI of Ri?al. 145 D6' the respondent court had ac7uired =urisdiction over any of the defendants and over the res. R0BI'E: 1(5 '6. The Court finds no a#use of discretion in issuing the 7uestioned order of August 4*, (9. It could not #e claimed that the act of respondent $udge in issuing the said order amounts to interference with the writ of attachment dated Fe#ruary 4, (9 issued #y $udge ineda, for #y the time the said writ was issued, respondent respo ndent $udge had alrea already dy control and dispos disposition ition of the case. The order of August 4*, (9 was #ut an implementation of the earlier order of April 4, (9 directing the sale of the cargoes on the ground of e8treme necessity as the cargoes as found #y respondent $udge upon ocular inspection were in danger of deteriorating and losing their mar&et value and the vessel was also in danger of sin&ing. !y then, respondent $udge had also issued the order dated $uly (9, (9 approving a /eed of Sale of su#=ect cargoes.
145 S. At any rate, defendant !aroom filed later, aside from a motion to dismiss, an answer with counterclaim praying that plaintiff #e directed to deliver the cargoes of defendant !aroom to $eddah and to pay damages, etc. and a cross and the purpose of the proceeding is to su#=ect the property to that lien. If a lien already e8ists, whether created #y mortgage, contract, or statute, the preliminary sei?ure is not necessary, and the court proceeds to enforce such lien in the manner provided #y law precisely as though the property had #een sei?ed upon attachment. 1Roller v. Holly, (; 0.S. 39, +)*> ++ B. ed. *4)5. The reason for the rule is o#vious. An attachment proceeding is for the purpose of creating a lien on the property to serve as security for the payment of the creditors@ claim. Hence, where a lien already e8ists, as in this case a maritime lien, the same is already e7uivalent to an attachment. oreover, since the property su#=ect of the action for the enforcement of the maritime liens was already in the possession of private respondent, there is no need for sei?ure for the court to o#tain =urisdiction over the res.
