Where The Main Action Is Appealed, The Attachment Which May Have Been Issued As An Incident Of That Action, Is Also Considered Appealed And So Also Removed From The Jurisdiction Of The Court A Quo. The Attachment Itself Cannot Be The Subject Of A Separate Action Independent Of The Principal Action Because The Attachment Was Only An Incident Of Such Action.⁠.. - The Lawyer's Post

See - Where The Main Action Is Appealed, The Attachment Which May Have Been Issued As An Incident Of That Action, Is Also Considered Appealed And So Also Removed From The Jurisdiction Of The Court A Quo. The Attachment Itself Cannot Be The Subject Of A Separate Action Independent Of The Principal Action Because The Attachment Was Only An Incident Of Such Action.⁠.. - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.

Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that in appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.

In this case,  petitioner had duly perfected its appeal of the RTC’s September 21, 2011 Decision resolving the Main Case through the timely filing of its Notice of Appeal dated October 27, 2011, together with the payment of the appropriate docket fees. The RTC, in an Order⁠1  dated January 25, 2012, had actually confirmed this fact, and thereby ordered the elevation of the entire records to the CA. Meanwhile, records do not show that respondents filed any appeal, resulting in the lapse of its own period to appeal therefrom. Thus, based on Section 9, Rule 41, it cannot be seriously doubted that the RTC had already lost jurisdiction over the Main Case.

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 mooted by its supervening appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 98237.

Note that in Sps. Olib v. Judge Pastoral,⁠2  the Court, in view of the nature of a preliminary attachment, definitively ruled that the attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate action independent of the principal action because the attachment was only an incident of such action, viz.:

Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party.

It is an auxiliary remedy and cannot have an independent existence apart from the main suit or claim instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. Being merely ancillary to a principal proceeding, the attachment must fail if the suit itself cannot be maintained as the purpose of the writ can no longer be justified.

The consequence is that where the main action is appealed, the attachment which may have been issued as an incident of that action, is also considered appealed and so also removed from the jurisdiction of the court a quo.  The attachment itself cannot be the subject of a separate action independent of the principal action because the attachment was only an incident of such action.⁠3 (Emphases supplied)

x x x."