January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 172296 : January 25, 2012]
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND/OR BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPOUSES ROMULO PLAZA AND WILMA PLAZA
G.R. No. 172296 (Far East Bank and Trust Company and/or Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Romulo Plaza and Wilma Plaza.) - On April 3, 1998, respondent spouses Romulo and Wilma Llanos Plaza executed a Real Estate Mortgage[1] over their property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 131316 in favor of petitioner Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) as a security for the payment of a loan obtained therefrom by their friend, Charlie Ang (Ang), in the amount of P2,158.000.00. Ang subsequently obtained from FEBTC additional loans of P1,800,000.00[2] and P3,000,000:00.[3] As respondent spouses learned that Ang had paid the monthly amortizations of the April 3, 1998 loan only from May to October 1998, they made representations with the bank by offering to pay Ang's remaining balance of the P2,158,000.00 loan.[4] However, the bank refused to accept respondent spouses' offer unless they would also assume Ang's other unpaid loans.
In the meantime, FEBTC merged with petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), with the latter as the surviving corporation.
On April 30, 2001, respondent spouses filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City a Complaint[5] for the release of their real estate mortgage and damages with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of injunction against petitioners and Charlie Ang.[6] Petitioners filed its Answer with Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim and Opposition to respondent spouses' application for a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction.[7]
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss,[8] which was denied by the RTC. Petitioners' attempt to reverse such denial was unsuccessful both in the CA and with us.
In the meantime, the RTC proceeded with the pre-trial of the main case. Respondent spouses offered[9] and paid the loaned amount of P2,158,000.00 and asked for the release of their mortgage. Petitioners accepted the amount as partial payment.
On January 27, 2003, petitioners filed with the Office of the Sheriff of the RTC of Cebu City an application for the extrajudicial foreclosure of respondent spouses' mortgaged property. Sheriff Fortunato T. Viovicente issued a Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure.
On February 21, 2003, respondent spouses filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction or TRO to stop the extrajudicial sale of the mortgaged property, which the RTC granted in an Order[10] dated March 3, 2003. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied by the RTC. Petitioners then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with TRO and/or preliminary mandatory injunction assailing the RTC Orders. The CA denied the petition as well as the reconsideration thereof.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
We deny the petition.
During the pendency of this petition, the RTC had rendered a Decision dated March 28, 2007 on the main action for the release of the real estate mortgage and damages, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of Plaintiff Spouses Romulo and Wilma Plaza and against defendant FEBTC/BP1 and ordering defendant to:
- Release the real estate mortgage constituted on the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 131316 and to return to the plaintiffs the owner's duplicate Certificate of Title there being payment in the amount of P2,158,000.00 made by plaintiff to defendant;
- The Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued on March 3, 2003 is made permanent as far as the act of defendant bank in foreclosing plaintiffs' lot earlier mortgage to defendant FEBTC/BPI over Transfer Certificate of Title No. 131316 of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Cebu;
- Pay plaintiff the attorney's fees in the amount of P60,000.00 and litigation expenses in the amount of P20,000.00.
Petitioners filed their appeal with the CA, which in its Decision dated May 31, 2010 affirmed with modification the RTC decision by deleting the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated December 15, 2010.
Petitioners then filed with us a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 195249. On March 28, 2011, we dismissed the petition after finding that the CA committed no reversible error in its decision. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied with finality. Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is pending resolution.
Considering that the RTC had already issued a permanent injunction, which was affirmed by the CA and then by us, the matter of whether the preliminary injunction was properly granted is now moot and academic.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being MOOT AND ACADEMIC. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 99-100.[2] Id. at 105.
[3] Id. at 103.
[4] Id. at 110.
[5] Id. at 107-114.
[6] The case was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-26405 and raffled off to Branch 11.
[7] Rollo, pp. 115-126.
[8] Id. at 127-138.
[9] Letter dated November 5, 2279.
[10] Penned by Judge Isaias Dicdican; id. at 193-195.