The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld the attachment of Megaworld Corporation’s assets worth ₱873.3 million, reinforcing a lower court’s order intended to secure the payment of alleged unpaid construction obligations to Datem Inc., one of the developer’s longtime contractors.
In a decision promulgated on October 27, 2025, the CA’s Special Second Division dismissed Megaworld’s petition for certiorari and affirmed the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 105’s issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment – a legal measure that allows the temporary seizure of a defendant’s property to ensure satisfaction of a possible judgment.
Legal Safeguard for Datem
The appellate court agreed with RTC Judge Rochelle Yvette D. Galano’s finding that Datem was entitled to the attachment as a precautionary remedy after presenting prima facie evidence of fraudulent conduct by Megaworld.
According to court records, Datem claimed that Megaworld repeatedly failed to pay for completed construction projects despite issuing Certificates of Acceptance and Completion, signifying that the projects had been turned over. The property giant allegedly entered into a Mutual Agreement on September 28, 2022, promising to settle outstanding receivables, but later defaulted on the terms while continuing to dispose of assets and declare dividends.
Judge Galano’s order authorized the attachment upon the posting of a bond equivalent to the claim amount of ₱873,324,248.89, to be served simultaneously with the summons and complaint. The CA concurred, stressing that the issuance of the writ was “a valid exercise of judicial discretion” aimed at preventing asset dissipation before the case is resolved.
Megaworld’s Petition Dismissed
Megaworld had argued that the RTC acted in excess of jurisdiction and that no fraudulent intent could be inferred from mere non-payment. However, the appellate court, through Associate Justice Eduardo S. Ramos Jr., ruled that Datem sufficiently established indicators of bad faith, noting Megaworld’s “false promises” and “willful omission to fulfill its obligations.”
Joining Ramos in the ruling were Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato Jr., who chaired the division, and Maximo M. De Leon, both concurring in full.
Implications for Developers and Contractors
Legal observers note that the decision underscores the judiciary’s willingness to invoke attachment remedies in commercial disputes involving large-scale developers, especially when signs of asset transfers or evasive behavior are evident.
The ruling also reinforces the protection available to contractors and suppliers in the property sector, where payment delays are common and project settlements often hinge on complex financial arrangements.
The case, CA-G.R. SP No. 183112, Megaworld Corporation vs. Hon. Rochelle Yvette D. Galano and Datem Inc. marks one of the most significant applications of attachment in recent corporate litigation, potentially influencing how courts handle future claims between developers and construction partners.
Neither Megaworld nor Datem has issued an official comment as of press time.