April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 192102 : April 11, 2012]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY V. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION AND CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION.
G.R. No. 192102 (Republic of the Philippines represented by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. General Milling Corporation and Citytrust Banking Corporation).� For resolution is a Manifestation and Motion (in lieu of Comment) filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) in response to the Court's Resolution dated 19 October 2011 requiring petitioner to comment on the Manifestation and Compliance filed by respondent Citytrust Banking Corporation (Citytrust)/Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).
The present case stems from a Complaint for eminent domain filed by petitioner to expropriate the land owned by respondent General Milling Corporation (GMC). Considering that the said property was then under a Mortgage Trust Indenture, with Citytrust as trustee, the latter was impleaded as party defendant in the Complaint.
When the matter reached this Court, it issued a Resolution dated 2 August 2010[1] directing respondents GMC and Citytrust to file their respective comments on the Petition. Eventually, the Court required[2] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to furnish the complete and present address of Citytrust. In its Manifestation and Motion[3] dated 10 December 2010, the OSG informed the Court that, pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular Letter Series of 1996 issued on 11 October 1996, the SEC on 4 October 1996 approved the merger between BPI (surviving corporation) and Citytrust (absorbed corporation). Accordingly, in its 19 January 2011 Resolution,[4] the Court noted the OSG Manifestation and directed that a copy of the 2 August 2010 Resolution be sent to Citytrust at the given address of BPI.
In a Resolution dated 10 August 2011, the Court required the Benedicto, Verzosa and Burkey Law Offices to show cause why the latter should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply with the 2 August 2010 Resolution of the Court.
In its Motion, to Admit Manifestation and Compliance, the said law firm manifested that it had never entered its appearance as counsel for Citytrust in the present case. Also, based on the records, the subject lot has already been released and discharged from the lien created by the Mortgage Trust Indenture, as shown by the Deed of Release of Property from Indenture Lien and Partial Cancellation of Mortgage dated 24 December 1997.[5] Hence, the trust function of Citytrust (or BPI as successor-in-interest) is already deemed terminated. Moreover, on 25 March 2010, respondent GMC as mortgagor/debtor executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim[6] directing the termination/closure of the Mortgage Trust Indenture between GMC and BPI. In turn, GMC acknowledged receipt of all the titles and documents.
In its 19 October 2011 Resolution,[7] the Court noted the Manifestation and Compliance and directed petitioner to comment thereon.
After several Motions for extension, the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion (In Lieu of Comment) submitting that Citytrust/BPI has no more interest in the property, subject of the Petition, and should therefore be dropped as party to the case pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.[8] The OSG further argues that dropping Citytrust/BPI as party to the case will be just to all the other parties. This is because GMC itself has already released Citytrust's successor (BPI) from any claims, liabilities, damages or suits arising from the implementation of the Mortgage Trust Indenture. The OSG prays that the Manifestation and Motion be noted and considered as substantial compliance with the Court's 19 October 2011 Resolution.cralaw
WHEREFORE, finding the OSG's points to be well-taken, the Court resolves to NOTE and GRANT the Manifestation and Motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor General. Respondent Citytrust Banking Corporation (and/or its successor-in-interest Bank of the Philippine Islands), is hereby ordered DROPPED as party respondent in the present case.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 76.[2] Id. at 101.
[3] Id. at 102-108.
[4] Id. at 109-110.
[5] Id. at 132-133.
[6] Id. at 134-135.
[7] Id. at 137-138.
[8] SEC. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. � Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
