Case Digest (G.R. No. 81024)
Facts:
Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81024, February 03, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.The dispute stems from loan guarantees extended by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to Galleon Shipping Corporation in 1979, secured by mortgages over several vessels; Sta. Ines Melale Forest Products Corporation (SIM), Rodolfo M. Cuenca and Manuel I. Tinio were named joint and solidary debtors. After Galleon defaulted, DBP foreclosed the vessel mortgages in June 1984, producing an auction deficiency of P2,700,960,412.60. Anticipating DBP’s deficiency claim, SIM, Cuenca and Tinio sued DBP, NDC and Galleon in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 148, Makati (Civil Case No. 10387), seeking among other reliefs a preliminary injunction and a declaration that they were not liable for the deficiency because of purported governmental interventions (L.O.I. 1155) and related agreements. DBP counterclaimed the deficiency. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction on May 15, 1985 restraining DBP from pursuing deficiency claims arising from the transactions covered by that complaint.
Separately, DBP extended foreign loan accommodations to SIM secured by a November 8, 1984 mortgage over SIM’s Magallanes, Agusan del Sur property. When DBP took possession of the mortgaged plant and posted security guards, SIM filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint (dated June 13, 1985) in Civil Case No. 10387, alleging the taking was unlawful and violative of the existing preliminary injunction; SIM sought a permanent injunction and damages. The RTC admitted the supplemental complaint by Order of August 20, 1985 and directed maintenance of the status quo ante litem. DBP assailed that Order via a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
On February 18, 1987 the Court of Appeals declared the RTC Order null and void, dismissed the supplemental complaint and lifted the preliminary injunction, holding (inter alia) that venue was improper because the supplemental pleading in reality sought relief affecting real property in Agusan del Sur and that the supplemental complaint raised a distinct cause of action not admissible as a supplemental pleading; it also found the status quo directive violative of P.D. No. 385 and the twenty-day limit on restraining orders. Upon motion for reconsideration the Court of Appeals reversed itself in a Resolution of August 25, 1987 and, on November 25, 1987, denied rehearing. DBP (later substituted by ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the admission of SIM’s supplemental complaint proper under the rules on supplemental pleadings and joinder of causes of action, and was venue properly laid?
- Was the trial court’s issuance/extension of the restraining order and its directive to maintain the status quo ante litem lawful in view of P.D. No. 385 and Rule 58, Sec. 5 as amended by B.P. Blg. 224?
- Does the transfer of SIM’s account from DBP to APT warrant dismissal of DBP’s peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)