ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 133862. June 5, 2006]

ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST, PETITIONER v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EUDARLIO B. VALENCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 222, QUEZON CITY, AND FELICIDAD AND REYNALDO CALIMBAS, RESPONDENTS

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated JUNE 5, 2006

G.R. No. 133862 (Asset Privatization Trust, Petitioner v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Eudarlio B. Valencia, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 222, Quezon City, and Felicidad and Reynaldo Calimbas, Respondents.)

This petition for review ^[1] cralaw assails the 15 May 1998 Resolution ^[2] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41520 which merely noted petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction.

Respondents Felicidad and Reynaldo Calimbas filed a complaint for specific performance and consignation with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction against Philippine National Bank (PNB) and petitioner Asset Privatization Trust (APT).

The trial court issued a TRO in its Order dated 24 October 1995.

APT filed on 15 November 1995 a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action.

On 23 November 1995, the trial court granted respondents' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. On 4 January 1996, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

APT filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Orders dated 23 November 1995 and 4 January 1996.

In its Order dated 9 February 1996, the trial court denied APT's Motion to Dismiss. APT filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Order.

On 17 June 1996, the trial court issued an Order denying APT's two Motions for Reconsideration. The first motion for reconsideration dated 8 January 1996 pertains to the Order of the trial court granting and issuing a writ of preliminary injunction against APT. The second motion for reconsideration dated 11 March 1996 refers to the Order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss filed by APT.

Aggrieved, APT filed a petition for certiorari ^[3] cralaw with the Court of Appeals.

In its Decision ^[4] cralaw of 24 January 1997, the Court of Appeals lifted the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. However, the Court of Appeals did not discuss the motion to dismiss filed by APT. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is given DUE COURSE. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by Judge EudarlioValencia in Civil Case No. Q-095-25261 is hereby lifted and set aside. The orders dated November 23, 1995 and June 17, 1996 are also declared to be null and void.

SO ORDERED. ^[5] cralaw

APT filed a Motion to Clarify Decision because the Court of Appeals did not distinctly rule on the trial court's denial of APT's motion to dismiss the complaint.

The question therefore is whether the Court of Appeals, in annulling the 17 June 1996 Order of the trial court, included the dismissal of the case against APT.

The Court holds that the Court of Appeals, in lifting and setting aside the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Eudarlio Valencia in Civil Case No. Q-095-25261, did not obviously include the dismissal of the case against APT. As stated by the Court of Appeals, the issue of whether the contract of sale between PNB and respondents binds APT should be resolved by the trial court.

WHEREFORE, the Court REMANDS this case to the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 222 for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

^[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona, with Associate Justices Artemon D. Luna and Ricardo P. Galvez, concurring.

^[3] cralaw Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

^[4] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Maximiano C. Asuncion, with Associate Justices Artemon D. Luna and Ramon A. Barcelona, concurring.

^[5] cralaw Rollo , p. 24.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011