Short answer. Yes. The Rules list as a ground an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication. No fraud has to be shown for this ground, unlike most of the others in the same section.
What the law says
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication
Rule 57, Section 1 — Grounds upon which attachment may issue. Read the full provision →
What the law says
At the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered
Rule 57, Section 1 — Grounds upon which attachment may issue. Read the full provision →
The ground stands on absence, not on wrongdoing
Most of the grounds in Section 1 turn on something the defendant has done: embezzlement, concealment of property, fraud in contracting the debt, disposing of assets to defeat creditors. Paragraph (f) is different. It applies in an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication. Nothing in that language requires proof of bad faith. The problem it addresses is practical rather than moral: a judgment against someone beyond reach is of limited use if there is no property held to answer for it.
Two situations, stated in the alternative
The paragraph describes two situations and either will do. The first is a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, where both halves are stated together. The second is a party on whom summons may be served by publication, which is a category defined by the rules on service rather than by residence. Reading them as alternatives matters, because a defendant may fall within the service-by-publication category without the first description fitting neatly. The application should identify which limb is being relied on and why the record supports it.
Attachment is security, not collection
Whichever ground is invoked, the writ does the same work. Property of the adverse party is attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered. It is not a transfer to the plaintiff, it is not payment, and it does not decide the merits of the claim. In a case against an absent defendant that function is the whole point: the asset within the jurisdiction is held so that a judgment, if the plaintiff obtains one, is not left with nothing to operate on. The claim itself still has to be proved in the ordinary way.
When the application may be made
Section 1 allows a plaintiff or any proper party to apply at the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment. Against an absent defendant the earlier end of that range is usually the practical one, since assets that can be moved may not stay available. The section also makes clear that the applicant need not be the plaintiff in every case, since it speaks of any proper party. Because attachment against an absent defendant interacts with how summons is to be served, it is worth settling both questions with counsel at the same time.