Practice question
A supplier seeks attachment under Section 1(d), relying only on an unpaid invoice and repeated demands. It identifies no concrete facts of fraud in contracting or performing the obligation. Under Pilipinas Shell v. Pobre, what is correct?
- Repeated demands conclusively prove fraud.
- Bare nonpayment does not itself establish the required fraud; the allegation must be specific and grounded in concrete circumstances.
- Every unpaid invoice automatically requires attachment.
- The debt's existence eliminates all security requirements.
- Attachment is automatic once counsel calls the debtor dishonest.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html — Rule 57, Sections 1 and 3.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/aug2023/gr_259709_2023.html — Pilipinas Shell v. Pobre, G.R. 259709, August 30, 2023, main opinion.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.