Short answer. Yes. Instead of letting the sheriff attach only enough non-exempt property in the Philippines to satisfy the claim, you may deposit an equivalent amount with the court or give a counter-bond executed to the applicant equal to the attachment bond or the value of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs.
What the law says
The sheriff enforcing the writ shall without delay and with all reasonable diligence attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, only so much of the property in the Philippines of the party against whom the writ is issued, not exempt from execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's demand, unless the former makes a deposit with the court from which the writ is issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an amount equal to the bond fixed by the court in the order of attachment or to the value of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs.
Rule 57, Section 5 — Manner of attaching property. Read the full provision →
The sheriff's attachment is limited by default
Rule 57, Section 5 directs the sheriff enforcing an attachment writ to act without delay and with reasonable diligence, but also to limit the seizure to only so much non-exempt property in the Philippines as is sufficient to satisfy the applicant's demand. The sheriff cannot attach everything the defendant owns simply because a writ has issued. This proportionality limit means the sheriff must assess the value needed to cover the claim before levying, and a defendant may object if the attachment reaches property clearly in excess of the amount required to satisfy the demand, since the rule ties the scope of seizure directly to the applicant's claim rather than to everything the defendant possesses.
Two ways to avoid the physical seizure
The section gives the party against whom the writ is issued an alternative to having property physically seized: making a deposit with the issuing court, or giving a counter-bond executed to the applicant. Either option must equal the amount of the bond the court fixed in the attachment order, or the value of the property that would otherwise be attached, exclusive of costs.
The prior-service-of-summons safeguard
The section also requires that a levy on attachment generally be preceded or accompanied by service of summons and copies of the complaint, application, affidavit, bond, and writ on the defendant within the Philippines — protecting against seizure before the defendant even knows a case has been filed. This requirement does not apply where summons could not be served despite diligent efforts, the defendant is a Philippine resident temporarily abroad, the defendant is a non-resident, or the action is in rem or quasi in rem. Where none of these exceptions is shown, a levy carried out without prior or contemporaneous service of summons is irregular and can be challenged by the defendant, since the safeguard exists precisely to prevent property from being seized before the defendant has notice of the suit.
Related provisions
- Rule 57, Section 5 — Manner of attaching property
- Rule 57, Section 4 — Condition of applicant' s bond
- Rule 57, Section 6 — Sheriff' s return