ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-2008 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 6567 - JOSE C. SABERON v. ATTY. FERNANDO T. LARONG

  • A.M. No. 00-10-496-RTC and A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1681 - GLORIA ESPIRITU v. JUDGE ERLINDA PESTANO-BUTED, ETC.

  • A.M. No. 2007-13-SC - RE: HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM OF MR. ERWIN A. ABDON, Utility Worker II

  • A.M. No. 08-1-30-MCTC - RE: FINANCIAL REPORT ON THE AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, APALIT - SAN SIMON, PAMPANGA

  • A.M. No. 2007-13-SC - RE: HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM OF MR. ERWIN A. ABDON, Utility Worker II

  • A.M. No. 12535-Ret - RE: APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT/GRATUITY BENEFITS UNDER R.A. NO. 910 AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 5095 AND P.D. NO. 1438 FILED BY MRS. CECILIA BUTACAN, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. JIMMY R. BUTACAN (FORMER JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT I

  • A.M. No. MTJ-08-1695 Formerly OCA IPI 03-1380-MTJ - JULIANITO M. SALVADOR v. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-08-1702 - EDWIN LACANILAO v. JUDGE MAXWELL S. ROSETE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-04-1765 - JUDGE FELIPE G. BANZON v. RUBY B. HECHANOVA

  • A.M. No. P-04-1914 - GLANIE FLORES, ET AL. v. MYRNA S. LOFRANCO, ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2054 - MILA L. DACDAC v. VICTOR C. RAMOS, ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2142 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2294-P - BRANCH CLERK OF COURT MARIZEN B. GRUTAS v. REYNALDO B. MADOLARIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-06-2214 - GEMMA LETICIA F. TABLATE v. JORGE C. RA ESES

  • A.M. No. P-08-2431 Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1682-P - EDITHA P. ELAPE v. ALBERTO R. ELAPE, ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2447 Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2447-P - ELVISA ROSALES v. DOMINADOR MONESIT, SR.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2455 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2175-P, A.M. NO. P-08-2456 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2228-P and A.M. NO. RTJ-08-2113 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2449-RTJ - JUDGE FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA v. VICTOR PEDRO A. YANEZA

  • A.M. RTJ-07-2039 Formerly A.M. No. 05-1-37, A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2055-RTJ and A.M. NO. 05-2177-RTJ - RTC - RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 14, DAVAO CITY, PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2109 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-2463-RTJ and Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-1-45-RTC - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE MOISES M. PARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105608 and G.R. NO. 113199 - TIRSO D. MONTEROSO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127545 - ANDRES SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 136225 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS (FFCBL) v. HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140944 - RAFAEL ARSENIO S. DIZON ETC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146053 - DIOSCORO F. BACSIN v. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN

  • G.R. No. 148187 - PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 150283 - RYUICHI YAMAMOTO v. NISHINO LEATHER INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151243 - LOLITA R. ALAMAYRI v. ROMMEL, ELMER, ERWIN, ROILER AND AMANDA, ALL SURNAMED PABALE

  • G.R. No. 151790 - SPS. ABNER AND ESTRELLA ANCHINGES v. SPS. FERMIN AND LORNA ALBARILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152457 - RODOLFO R. MAHINAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152666 - MARCIANO TAN v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. 153420 - PARAISO INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154740 - HENRY DELA RAMA CO. v. ADMIRAL UNITED SAVINGS BANK

  • G.R. No. 155806 - TIBLE & TIBLE COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. ROYAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156421 - HON. JOSE FERNADEZ, ET AL. v. SPS. GREGORIO ESPINOZA and JOJI GADOR-ESPINOZA

  • G.R. No. 156470 - FREDERICK DAEL v. SPS. BENEDICTO & VILMA BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. 158026 - DORIE ABESA NICOLAS v. DEL-NACIA CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 158040 - SPOUSES ONESIFORO and ROSARIO ALINAS v. SPOUSES VICTOR and ELENA ALINAS

  • G.R. No. 158271 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. ASIAN CONSTRUCTION and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 158788 - ELY AGUSTIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 158881 - PETRON CORPORATION v. MAYOR TOBIAS M. TIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158965 - NESTORIO W. LAYA, ET AL. v. SPOUSES EDWIN and LOURDES TRIVIÑO

  • G.R. No. 159585 and G.R. NO. 165318 - AMANDO A. PONTAOE, ET AL. v. TEODORA A. PONTAOE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 159731 - EASTERN ASSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION v. CON-FIELD CONSTRUCTION and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 160113 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. TAFA INDUSTIRES INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160671 - LUIS L. CO v. HON. RICARDO R. ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160811 - RICKY BASTIAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160855 - CONCEPCION CHUA GAW v. SUY BEN CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161004 - TECNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. 161070 - JOHN HILARIO y SIBAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 161390 - RAUL H. SESBRE O v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161933 - STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (SCBEU-NUBE) v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK and ANNEMARIE DURBIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162195 - BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC. v. REYNALDO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 162356 - DONG SEUNG INCORPORATED v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162420 - JAGUAR SECURITY and INVESTIGATION AGENCY v. RODOLFO A. SALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162808 - FELICIANO GALVANTE v. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162956 - FAUSTINO REYES, ET AL. v. PETER B. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163013 - EUREKA PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163684 - FAUSTINA CAMITAN, ET AL. v. FIDELITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 164081 - MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILS. CORPORATION v. ROLANDO SIMON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164150 - THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164195 - APO FRUITS CORP, ET AL. v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164298 - ENGR. ROGER F. BORJA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 164805 - SOLIDBANK CORP., ETC. v. GATEWAY ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164824 - ROLANDO V. AROMIN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164909 - RONNIE AMBAIT Y SAURA v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165284 - MP ACEBEDO OPTICAL SHOPS/ACEBEDO OPTICAL CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165696 - ALEJANDRO B. TY v. SYLVIA S. TY, ETC.

  • G.R. No. 165776 - GENEVIEVE O. GAAS, ET AL. v. RASOL L. MITMUG, ETC.

  • G.R. No. 165968 - PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. EMMANUEL V. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 166051 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. EVELINA LASERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166245 - ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORPORATION v. THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 166246 - ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 166658 - EUSTAQUIO B. CESA v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166703 - AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE, INC. v. ELY GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166809 - ATTY. ROMEO L. ERECE v. LYN B. MACALINGAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167011 - SPS. CARLOS AND ERLINDA ROMUALDEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. NO. 167011 - G.R. NO. 167011 - CARPIO - DISSENTING OPINION

  • G.R. NO. 167011 - G.R. NO. 167011 - TINGA - DISSENTING OPINION

  • G.R. No. 167280 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. SPS. ELMOR V. BANCE AND ROSARIO J. BANCE

  • G.R. No. 167756 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY NAZARENO

  • G.R. No. 168116 - BELLE CORPORATION v. ARTURO N. MACASUSI

  • G.R. No. 168862 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) v. EMMANUEL P. CUNTAPAY

  • G.R No. 168999 - RAUL DAZA v. RONAN P. LUGO

  • G.R. No. 169370 - EUSTACIO ATWEL, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • G.R. NOS. 169408 & 170144 - HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD v. DYNAMIC PLANNERS AND CONSTRUCTION CORP.

  • G.R. No. 169790 - CONGREGATION OF THE RELIGIOUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY, ETC. v. EMILIO OROLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 169829-30 - STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS

  • G.R. No. 169914 and G.R. No. 174166 - ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 169914/G.R. No. 174166 - G.R. No. 169914/G.R. No. 174166 - J. CORONA - DISSENTING OPINION

  • G.R. No. 170112 - DEL PILAR ACADEMY, ET AL. v. DEL PILAR ACADEMY EMPLOYEES UNION

  • G.R. No. 170141 - JAPAN AIRLINES v. JESUS SIMANGAN

  • G.R. No. 170243 - NANCY H. ZAYCO, ET AL. v. ATTY. JESUS V. HINLO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 170691 - REBECCA E. BADIOLA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170813 - B.F. METAL (CORPORATION) v. SPS. ROLANDO M. LOMOTAN and LINAFLOR LOMOTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171374 - TEOFILA ILAGAN-MENDOZA, ET AL. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171500 - FERNANDO C. PARMA JR. v. THE OFFICE FO THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172038 - DANTE D. DE LA CRUZ v. MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172299 - ALFREDO TAGLE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172410 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HOLY TRINITY REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 172470 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SAMMY RAMOS Y DALERE

  • G.R. No. 172595 - BIENVENIDO EJERCITO, ET AL. v. M.R. VARGAS CONSTRUCTION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172890 - S.L. TEVES, INC., ETC., ET AL. v. CASIANO ERAN

  • G.R. No. 172953 - JUNIE MALILLIN Y. LOPEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 173192 - ROSENDO BACALSO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO PADIGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 173918 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 174011 - AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, ET AL. v. ANGELUS TONGOY ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 174672 - MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF MARCELINA L. SERO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 174826 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. ENGR. ALFONSO P. ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. 174935 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. TRISTAN C. COLANGGO

  • G.R. No. 175005 - THE ESTATE OF POSEDIO ORTEGA v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 175201 - HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 175338 - AIR MATERIEL WING SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., ET AL. v. COL. LUVIN S. PANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 175338 - G.R. No. 175338 - J. NACHURA - DISSENTING OPINION

  • G.R. No. 175371 - BENITO J. BRIZUELA v. ABRAHAM DINGLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 175460 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION INC., ET AL. v. PIGLAS NFWD-KMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 175600 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEONEL PASAOL PALAC

  • G.R. No. 175604 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SALVADOR PE AFLORIDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 175952 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176065 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAMON ARIVAN y FORNILLO

  • G.R. No. 176084 - CARMENCITA G. CARINO v. MERLIN DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 176265 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE MAGBANUA Y MORI O

  • G.R. No. 176324 - ABAYA INVESTMENTS CORPORATION v. MERIT PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 177666 - EUGENIO R. AVENIDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 178546 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MUKIM ELING y MA ALAC

  • G.R. No. 179035 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JESUS PAYCANA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 179261 - THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL. v. BEATRIZ S. PELINO

  • G.R. No. 179337 - JOSEPH SALUDAGA v. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179499 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TORIBIO JABINIAO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179851 - MAYOR JOSE UGDORACION, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179901 - BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC., ETC. v. JAPRL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NORBERTO DEL MONTE y GAPAY

  • G.R. No. 180444 - FEDERICO T. MONTEBON, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 161004 - TECNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

      G.R. No. 161004 - TECNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. NO. 161004 : April 14, 2008]

    TECNOGAS* PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    QUISUMBING, J.:

    For review under Rule 45 are the Decision1 and the Resolution2 dated July 24, 2003 and November 5, 2003, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73822. The Court of Appeals reversed the Orders dated October 8, 20013 and September 11, 20024 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 274, granting petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 01-0330.

    The antecedent facts are as follows:

    On December 3, 1991, petitioner Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation (Tecnogas) obtained from respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB) an Omnibus Line of P35 million and a 5-year Term Loan of P14 million. To secure the loan, Tecnogas executed a Real Estate Mortgage5 (REM) over its parcel of land in Parañaque City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1225336 and registered in the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City.

    The REM authorized PNB to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage as the duly constituted attorney-in-fact of Tecnogas7 in case Tecnogas defaults on its obligations. It also provided that the mortgage will stand as a security for any and all other obligations of Tecnogas to PNB, for whatever kind or nature, and regardless of whether the obligations had been contracted before, during or after the constitution of the mortgage.8

    On several occasions, Tecnogas' loan had been increased, renewed and restructured upon its requests whenever it could not pay its obligations on their due dates. Finally, when the loan matured, PNB sent collection letters9 to Tecnogas, but the latter only proposed to pay its obligations by way of dacion en pago conveying TCT No. 122533.10 As of April 15, 2001, petitioner's loan obligation was P205,025,743.59, inclusive of interest and penalties.11

    On August 16, 2001, PNB filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM in the RTC of Parañaque City. The auction sale was set on September 20, 2001.

    A day before the auction sale, Tecnogas filed with the Parañaque City RTC a complaint12 for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure sale, with application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction docketed as Civil Case No. 01-0330. On the same date, the RTC issued a TRO valid for 72 hours.13 On September 21, 2001, the RTC granted extension of the TRO for 17 days.14

    On October 8, 2001, the RTC granted Tecnogas' application and issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property.15 PNB sought reconsideration with a motion to dissolve the writ. But its motions were denied by the court in its Order16 dated September 11, 2002.

    On November 29, 2002, PNB filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking the annulment of the October 8, 2001 and September 11, 2002 Orders of the RTC.

    On July 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed decision and ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in enjoining the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. It held that Tecnogas' proposal to pay through dacion en pago did not constitute payment as it was not accepted by PNB. Thus, injunction was not proper as the extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM was a necessary consequence of Tecnogas' default in its loan obligations. Tecnogas sought reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence, this petition.

    Meanwhile, the auction sale was set on August 17 and 24, 2004. Tecnogas filed an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a TRO/Injunction. The August 17, 2004 auction sale was postponed to permit Tecnogas to settle its obligations, but it failed to do so. Thus, the auction sale proceeded on August 24, 2004.

    In its memorandum, Tecnogas raises the following issues:

    I.

    WHETHER OR NOT THE TWO (2) RTC JUDGES A QUO COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHICH IS CORRECTIBLE BY CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65[.]

    II.

    WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN PRE-EMPTING THE MERITS OF THE MAIN CASE[.]

    III.

    WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT COMMITTED BY THE TWO (2) RTC JUDGES A QUO.

    IV.

    WHETHER OR NOT THE INSTANT PETITION HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC BY THE FORECLOSURE SALE[.]17

    Simply, the issues are: (1) Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that Tecnogas was not entitled to an injunctive relief? (2) Did the foreclosure sale render the petition moot?cra lawlibrary

    Tecnogas admits its liability and that its proposal to pay by way of dacion en pago was not accepted by PNB. But Tecnogas avers that its proposal constitutes a valid tender of payment. It further avers that the Court of Appeals, in issuing the assailed decision, preempted the merits of the main case in Civil Case No. 01-0330. It finally avers that the foreclosure sale did not render the petition moot.18

    PNB counters that the proposal to pay by way of dacion en pago did not extinguish Tecnogas' obligation; thus, the extrajudicial foreclosure sale was proper. It also contends that the Court of Appeals did not preempt the resolution of the main case in Civil Case No. 01-0330, as its findings were necessary to resolve the issue on injunction. It finally contends that the foreclosure of the REM rendered the petition moot.19

    Considering the submissions and contentions of the parties, we are in agreement that the petition lacks merit.

    A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing by the applicant of the existence of the following: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; and (3) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion.20

    Dacion en pago is a special mode of payment whereby the debtor offers another thing to the creditor who accepts it as equivalent of payment of an outstanding obligation. The undertaking is really one of sale, that is, the creditor is really buying the thing or property of the debtor, payment for which is to be charged against the debtor's debt. As such, the essential elements of a contract of sale, namely, consent, object certain, and cause or consideration must be present. It is only when the thing offered as an equivalent is accepted by the creditor that novation takes place, thereby, totally extinguishing the debt.21

    On the first issue, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Tecnogas has no clear legal right to an injunctive relief because its proposal to pay by way of dacion en pago did not extinguish its obligation. Undeniably, Tecnogas' proposal to pay by way of dacion en pago was not accepted by PNB. Thus, the unaccepted proposal neither novates the parties' mortgage contract nor suspends its execution as there was no meeting of the minds between the parties on whether the loan will be extinguished by way of dacion en pago. Necessarily, upon Tecnogas' default in its obligations, the foreclosure of the REM becomes a matter of right on the part of PNB, for such is the purpose of requiring security for the loans.

    By disallowing Tecnogas' prayer for injunctive relief, the Court of Appeals did not preempt the resolution of the main case in Civil Case No. 01-0330 for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure sale. In said case, the trial court still needs to resolve the issues of whether Tecnogas observed the procedures prescribed by Act No. 3135,22 as amended, on extrajudicial foreclosure of REM, and whether it suffered damage as a result of PNB's acts. These issues are still unresolved questions which have to be passed upon by the trial court after hearing the evidence of both parties so that an adjudication of the rights of the parties can be had.23

    On the second issue, the holding of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale did not render this case moot. A case becomes moot only when there is no more actual controversy between the parties, or when no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.24 In this case, the decision of the Court of Appeals annulling the grant of preliminary injunction in favor of Tecnogas has not yet become final on August 24, 2004. The preliminary injunction, therefore, issued by the trial court remains valid until the decision of the Court of Appeals annulling the same attains finality, and violation thereof constitutes indirect contempt which, however, requires either a formal charge or a verified petition.25

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated July 24, 2003 and November 5, 2003, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73822 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., Brion, JJ., concur.


    Endnotes:


    * Technogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. in some parts of the records.

    1 Rollo, pp. 28-36. Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Mendoza concurring.

    2 Id. at 38. Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, with Associate Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr. and Jose L. Sabio, Jr. concurring.

    3 Records, Vol. I, p. 299. Penned by Pairing Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort.

    4 Id. at Vol. II, pp. 630-633. Penned by Presiding Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.

    5 CA rollo, pp. 72-76.

    6 Id. at 77. TCT No. 122533 is a transfer from TCT No. 409316 (13293)/ T-67.

    7 Id. at 73.

    8 Id. at 72. . . . In case the Mortgagor/s execute subsequent promissory note or notes either as a renewal of the former note, as an extension thereof, or as a new loan, or is given any other kind of accommodations such as overdrafts, letters of credit, acceptances and bills of exchange, releases of import shipments on Trust Receipts, etc., this mortgage shall also stand as security for the payment of the said promissory note or notes and/or accommodations without the necessity of executing a new contract and this mortgage shall have the same force and effect as if the said promissory note or notes and/or accommodations were existing on the date hereof. This mortgage shall also stand as security for said obligations and any and all other obligations of the Mortgagor/s to the Mortgagee of whatever kind and nature, whether such obligations have been contracted before, during or after the constitution of this mortgage'. (Emphasis supplied.)

    9 Id. at 136-139. Dated November 7, 2000, December 7, 2000, December 28, 2000, and February 28, 2001.

    10 Id. at 300.

    11 CA rollo, pp. 145-146.

    12 Records, Vol. I, pp. 8-47.

    13 Id. at 4.

    14 Id. at 143.

    15 Id. at p. 299. Issued by Pairing Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort.

    16 Id. at Vol II, pp. 630-633. Issued by Presiding Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.

    17 Rollo, p. 296.

    18 Id. at 283-289.

    19 Id. at 308-311.

    20 Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. No. 134971, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 282, 299.

    21 Philippine Lawin Bus, Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130972, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 332, 338, citing Filinvest Credit Corp. v. Phil. Acetylene, Co., Inc., No. L-50449, January 30, 1982, 111 SCRA 421, 427-428.

    22 An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property Under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real-Estate Mortgages.

    23 See Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121251, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 271, 278.

    24 Id.

    25 See Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.147191, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 668, 686-687.

    G.R. No. 161004 - TECNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED