LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK VS.

KRISHNAN

Facts:

1. Respondent Krishnan claims that she is a client of respondent bank wherein she maintained
several accounts including time deposits.

2. On several occasions, when respondent Erlinda presented her Time Deposits Certificates for
payment because they have become due, petitioners refused to honor them for the reason that
they were fraudulent.

3. LDB in consequence files a complaint for collectoin of sum of money.

4. Respondent Erlinda likewise applied for a Preliminary Writ of Attachment which the RTC granted.

5. Subesequently, respondent judge issued an Order directing respondent Erlinda to file an

attachment bond and petitioners to file a counterbond. However, the bank prayed that they be
allowed to deposit Certificates of Title of real property but it was denied by the RTC.

ISSUE:chanroblesvirtuallaw
Whether the denial of motion praying that bank property be deposited in lieu of cash or a counter-
bond.

HELD: cral

1. The Supreme Court in the negative.

2. Section 2, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that "unless such party makes deposit or
gives a bond”.

3. While it is true that the word deposit cannot only be confined or construed to refer to cash, a
broader interpretation thereof is not justified in the present case because when a party seeks to
stay an attachment he is required to make a deposit in an “amount” equal to the bond fixed by the
court.

4. Plainly, in construing said words, it can only mean the word "amount" commonly refers to or is
regularly associated with a sum of money.

5. Thus, petitioners cannot broaden the signification of the term "deposit" to include that of real
properties.cralawred
NORTHERN ISALANDS VS. SPOUSES GARCIA

FACTS:

1. Northern Islands Co., Inc. filed a Complaint4 with application for a writ of preliminary attachment,
before the RTC against respondents. It alleged that they caused the delivery to Spouses Garcia of
various appliances however the value of the goods were not paid by respondents.

2. In connection with the application for a writ of preliminary attachment, Northern Islands posted a
bond.

3. Upon attachment, Spouses Garcia filed a Motion to Discharge Excess Attachment.

4. However, The RTC denied the Motion to Discharge Excess Attachment. Spouses Garcia then
prayed that the RTC refer to a commissioner.

5. During the pendecny, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissed the main case fied by Northern
.
Island Co. due to the absence of any evidence

6. The RTC’s was later appealed by petitioner before the CA .

7. Meanwhile, the CA ordering the RTC to appoint a commissioner.

ISSUE:
Whether the CA was correct in ordering the RTC to appoint a commissioner.

HELD:
1. No.
2. Petitioner had duly perfected its appeal of the RTC’s through the timely filing of its Notice of
Appeal .
3. With the RTC’s loss of jurisdiction over the Main Case necessarily comes its loss of jurisdiction over
all matters merely ancillary thereto. Thus, the propriety of conducting a trial by commissioners in
order to determine the excessiveness of the subject preliminary attachment, being a mere ancillary
matter to the Main Case, is now moot and academic.