MANGILA V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Distinction should be made between issuance and implementation of the writ of attachment. It is necessary to distinguish between the two to determine when jurisdiction over the defendant should be acquired to validly implement the writ.

The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves 3 stages:

1. the court issues the order granting the application;
2. the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and
3. the writ is implemented.

For the initial 2 stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the court will not bind the defendant.

The alias summons belatedly served cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce such a coercive process without obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant.

The preliminary writ of attachment must be served before or simultaneous with the service of summons. The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction because the law does not allow retroactivity of belated service.