ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 144136. September 6, 2006]

WESTMONT BANK (NOW UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS.) versus MANIFOLD CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES AND TAN BUN PIN SONS MERCHANDISING CO.*

Second Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 6, 2006.

G.R. No. 144136 (Westmont Bank (Now United Overseas Bank Phils.) versus Manifold Construction Enterprises and Tan Bun Pin Sons Merchandising Co. *)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

This is a petition for review [1] cralaw of the February 9, 2000 decision of the Court of Appeals [2] cralaw in CA-G.R. SP No. 54523 finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82 [3] cralaw when it denied petitioner's motion to set aside a writ of preliminary injunction. [4] cralaw

The facts as found by the appellate court follow:

To guarantee [the P30 million loan of respondent Manifold Construction Enterprises], [respondent] Tan Bun Pin Sons Merchandising Company executed a Real Estate Mortgage over its property covered by TCT No. 339475 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.

For failure of [respondents] to comply with this obligation, petitioner filed a petition for Extra-judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage before Atty. Sixto D. Diompoc, a Notary Public of Quezon City. Acting on said petition, the notary public caused a Notice of Extra-Judicial Sale to be published and scheduled at the public auction on February 2, 1998.

Earlier, however, on January 30, 1998, [respondents] filed before [the trial court] a Petition for Annulment of Notice of Extra-Judicial Sale and Damages With Prayer for the issuance of Temporary Restraining Order enjoining petitioner and the notary concerned from proceeding with the [scheduled] public auction.

In the hearing [for] the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on February 17, 1998 [the] parties were directed to file their respective [memorandum]. [On February 23, 1998], [the trial court] issued an Order, granting the issuance of the writ, the decretal portion of the Order, providing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, [respondents'] application is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, let a writ of preliminary injunction issue enjoining Westmont Bank and the Notary Public of Quezon City, and their deputies/agents and all persons acting in their behalves and/or instructions from causing the extra-judicial sale of the property herein involved during the pendency of the present action and/or until otherwise ordered by this Court. Said writ shall take effect upon the [respondents'] filing a bond with the Clerk of Court of this Court executed to the [petitioner], in the amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) to be posted by a surety acceptable to this Court, to the effect that the [respondents] will pay to the [petitioner] all damages which it may sustain by reason of the injunction if this court finally decide[s] that the [respondents] are not entitled thereto.

On March 10, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion to Set Aside the Writ of Preliminary Injunction contending that [respondents] failed to furnish it with the copy of the injunction bond. In an Order dated April 20, 1999, [the trial court] denied petitioner's motion, thus:

The [petitioner] bank contends that no copy of the injunction bond was ever served [on] it in gross violation of Section 7, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. It accordingly prays for an order affirming/confirming that the Writ of Preliminary Injunction herein has never been efficacious and/or that it had lost efficacy because no copy of the bond had been served [on it].

In their Opposition, however, the [respondents] claim that they have furnished the [petitioner] a copy of their "Manifestation and Compliance," stating that they have already posted the injunction bond in the sum of P1,000,000.00 through the undertaking of Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation, with the attached copy of the said bond, and that, assuming they failed to serve a copy of the bond [on] the [petitioner] bank, it is not, however, a ground to set aside or dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction.

This Court fully concurs with the arguments advanced by the [respondents]. Section 6, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provides for the grounds for objection to, or for motion for dissolution [of], injunction or restraining orders. The ground [which petitioner] relied upon is not one of those stated therein. [5] cralaw

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, [6] cralaw petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals [7] cralaw which, however, dismissed it on February 9, 2000. [8] cralaw The motion for reconsideration [9] cralaw was also denied. [10] cralaw

Hence, this appeal.

Petitioner was served with a copy of the injunction bond which was attached to respondents' "Manifestation and Compliance." [11] cralaw This factual finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, [12] cralaw is binding on us.

The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. The Rules of Court gives generous latitude to the trial court in this regard since conflicting claims (when an application for the writ is made and opposed) more often than not involve a factual determination. Hence, the exercise of sound discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with unless there is manifest abuse. [13] cralaw

In the case at bar, a hearing was conducted on the application for the issuance of the writ. Petitioner submitted pleadings in support of its position. It was not deprived of its day in court and was in fact granted the opportunity to present its arguments and defenses.

Based on the foregoing, the petition must fail. Other than that the issue raised was mainly factual, petitioner also failed to show a reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals which found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying its motion to set aside the writ of preliminary injunction.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

* Hon. Salvador C. Ceguera, in his capacity as presiding judge of RTC of Quezon City, Branch 82, was named as respondent. However, under Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, the lower court or judges thereof need not be impleaded in the petitions for review filed before this Court.

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

[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola (retired) and Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (in lieu of Justice Demetria who was on leave), of the Special Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals; rollo , pp. 38-44.

[3] cralaw Presided by Judge Salvador C. Ceguera.

[4] cralaw Order dated April 20, 1999, rollo, p. 56.

[5] cralaw Id., pp. 39-41.

[6] cralaw Order dated May 5, 1999, id., pp. 59-60.

[7] cralaw Dated July 20, 1999, id., pp. 61-72.

[8] cralaw Id., pp. 38-44.

[9] cralaw Dated March 2, 2000, id., pp. 73-75.

[10] cralaw Resolution dated June 7, 2000, id., pp. 46-47.

[11] cralaw Respondents' manifestation that they have already posted the injunction bond in the sum of P1,000,000 through the Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation.

[12] cralaw Montecillo v. Reynes, 434 Phil. 456 (2002).

[13] cralaw Urbanes , Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117964, 28 March 2001, 355 SCRA 537.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com