G.R. No. 142731 - Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (formerly Far East Bank and Trust Company) granted eight (8) loans to Noah’s Ark Merchandising, a sole proprietorship owned by Albert T. Looyuko.
Loans evidenced by identical promissory notes signed by Looyuko, Jimmy T. Go (private respondent), and Wilson Go; secured by a real estate mortgage over TCT No. 160277 registered in the names of Looyuko and Jimmy T. Go.

Claiming default, petitioner extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and scheduled a public auction on April 14, 1998.
On April 8, 1998, private respondent filed a complaint for damages with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to enjoin the auction sale.
On April 14, 1998, the trial court issued a TRO; on April 15, 1998, it extended the TRO to a total of twenty (20) days.
After hearing, on May 7, 1998, the court granted a preliminary injunction effective upon posting a ₱200,000 bond; private respondent posted the bond.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 30, 1998, on grounds that foreclosure was premature as to four (4) promissory notes; pre-trial was set thereafter.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul the May 7 and July 30, 1998 orders and dissolve the injunction; CA decision dated August 26, 1999 partially denied relief.
The CA held the ₱200,000 bond insufficient and, invoking Section 7, Rule 58, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered private respondent to file a new injunctive bond of ₱5,000,000.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CA resolution dated April 3, 2000.
Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.

Whether private respondent was entitled to a TRO and preliminary injunction to enjoin the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale.
Whether private respondent’s rights to due process and sufficient demand were violated, justifying injunctive relief.

Whether the issuance and duration of the TRO complied with Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.
Whether Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays may be excluded in computing the twenty-day TRO period.

Whether the ₱200,000 bond was sufficient to protect petitioner against damages by reason of the injunction.
Whether the CA properly increased the bond to ₱5,000,000 under Section 7, Rule 58.