His first order contains notations of the pre-mptive withdrawal by mayor Perdices of his prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendant Australian, Dindo P. Generoso.
What strikes me in the judge's order is his comments that although it was a voluntary withdrawal by Mayor Perdices, the judge apparently made a comment stating that no attachment was forthcoming.
I am referring to the judge's statement in the order dated June 12, 2007 which says, "Anyway the the withdrawal of the provisional remedy is the prerogative of the plaintiff, but just the same, the Writ of Preliminary Attachment, under the rules may not be granted to him as the facts and information obtaining in the situation witholds it from the plainitff."
Another thing that strikes me in the order is the directive for the isusance and service of the summons to the defendant.
If you would notice in the lower portion of the order , the judge categorically directed that copies of the June 12, 2007 order be furnished to the defendant Dindo P. Generoso specifically to his address at 2/31 Kensington Road, Summer Hill 2130, New South Wales Australia.
Thus, the summons should be served in said address, as even a copy of the June 12, 2007 order of the judge is to be served upon the defendant to the same address.
Besides, this is the address given by the plaintiff under oath.