Ting v. Villaria & Consolidated Bank & Trust Company (1989)

Roberto TING v. Hon. VILLARIA and CONSOLIDATED BANK & TRUST COMPANY

GR No. 61754

August 17, 1989

Ponente: Justice Sarmiento

FACTS:

Consolidated Bank and Trust Company (private respondent) filed a complaint for a sum of money with a writ for preliminary attachment against Perlon Textile Mills and its directors. They sued for two causes of actions: (1) recovery of several promissory notes of the amount of P2,972,955.51, allegedly obtained for the private respondent by its duly authorized officers Lu Cheng Peng, Teng See and Roberto Ting; (2) dwells on several violations of trust receipt agreements which the defendant corporation executed in favor of Consolidated Bank. The aforementioned officers signed the promissory notes in their personal and official capacities, thus binding themselves jointly and severally to the Consolidated Bank for payments thereof. The respondent judge ordered the Sheriff to attach the real and personal estate of Perlon Textile Mills, including the spouses Ting. Ting’s motion to quash was dismissed by the respondent judge for lack of merit as well as his corresponding motion for reconsideration. Petitioners are challenging the writ of preliminary attachment and contents that the corporation alone should be held liable for the violation of the trust receipt agreements. Lastly, the petitioner asks that the writ of preliminary attachment be struck down as it authorized an attachment over the petitioner’ conjugal partnership property.

ISSUE/S:

1.     W/N the property of Roberto Ting attached to the writ of preliminary attachment is conjugal property.

2.     W/N the petitioner’s acts has redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

1.     YES. The attached property of the spouses Ting is conjugal. Thus, the attachment ordered by the respondent judge called for the sheriffs to “attach the estate, real and personal of Spouses Roberto Ting and Dolores Lim Ting” gives cause for the Court to strike it down for being null and void. Dolores Ting was impleaded merely because of the fact that she is Roberto’s spouse.

2.     NO. The court finds that the conjugal partnership could not have possibly benefitted when the husband binds himself as guarantor because this does not conserve or augment conjugal funds, contrary to the allegation of the Consolidated Bank that the act of the husband redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Lastly, the Court states that when the husband assumes the obligation of a guarantor, the presumption that he acts, as administrator, for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, is lost.

JUDGMENT:

- Petition is GRANTED. The questioned orders of the respondent judge and the levy on attachment made are declared NULL and VOID.