DISSOLUTION OF A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT:

The Court holds that the writ of preliminary attachment must be dissolved and, indeed, it must not have been issued in the very first place. While there is merit in private respondent’s position that she, by affidavit, was able to substantiate the allegation of fraud in the same way that the fraud attributable to petitioners was sufficiently alleged in the complaint and, hence, the issuance of the writ would have been justified. Still, the writ of attachment in this case would only prove to be useless and unnecessary under the premises, since the property of the municipality may not, in the event that respondent’s claim is validated, be subjected to writs of execution and garnishment — unless, of course, there has been a corresponding appropriation provided by law (City of Caloocan v. Allarde, and Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-61744, June 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 56).  x x x x 

            Anent the other issues raised by petitioners relative to the denial of their motion to dissolve the writ of attachment, i.e., unenforceability of the contract and the veracity of private respondent’s allegation of fraud, suffice it to say that these pertain to the merits of the main action. Hence, these issues are not to be taken up in resolving the motion to discharge, lest we run the risk of deciding or prejudging the main case and force a trial on the merits at this stage of the proceedings (Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93262, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 343; GB Inc. v. Sanchez, 98 Phil. 886 (1956) cited in THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN, et al. vs. HON. SIMEON P. DUMDUM, JR., et. al., G.R. No. 168289, March 22, 2010, PERALTA, J.).