Case Digest (G.R. No. 157163) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hon. Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr. (G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014), the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) seeks relief from the Supreme Court against orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Cebu City, presided by Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr. On May 22, 2001, respondents Spouses Silverio and Zosima Borbon, Spouses Xerxes and Erlinda Facultad, and XM Facultad & Development Corporation filed Civil Case No. CEB-26468 before that RTC, praying for the nullity of promissory notes, a continuing surety agreement, real estate and chattel mortgages securing a P17,983,191.49 loan, damages, attorney’s fees, and a temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin threatened foreclosure on their mortgaged properties and criminal suits for Batas Pambansa 22 violations based on post-dated checks. They alleged economic duress, unfair standard-form contracts, illegal interest conversions and that, having paid Case Digest (G.R. No. 157163) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background
- On May 22, 2001, Spouses Silverio and Zosima Borbon, Spouses Xerxes and Erlinda Facultad, and XM Facultad & Development Corporation (“respondents”) filed Civil Case No. CEB-26468 in RTC Branch 16, Cebu City, praying for:
- Declaration of nullity of promissory notes, real estate and chattel mortgages, continuing surety agreement executed in favor of Bank of the Philippine Islands (“petitioner”);
- Damages and attorney’s fees;
- Issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction to enjoin petitioner from foreclosing on the mortgages or using postdated checks as evidence in criminal complaints under BP No. 22.
- They alleged an outstanding loan obligation of ₱17,983,191.49 secured by:
- Real estate mortgages on several parcels of land;
- A chattel mortgage on a Mitsubishi Pajero;
- A continuing surety agreement.
- Lower Court Proceedings
- On June 6, 2001, petitioner filed its answer with affirmative defenses, counterclaim, opposition to injunctive relief, and a motion to dismiss for:
- Improper venue;
- Non-payment of correct docket fees;
- Lack of personality or indispensable party issues (Zosima Borbon deceased; no board resolution by XM Facultad);
- Failure to state a cause of action.
- RTC Order of July 5, 2001 denied the motion to dismiss but granted the respondents’ application for a preliminary injunction upon a ₱2 million bond, enjoining petitioner from:
- Foreclosing the mortgaged properties;
- Taking possession of the Mitsubishi Pajero;
- Using the postdated checks as basis for criminal complaints.
- RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on August 22, 2001.
- On July 9, 2002, the CA in G.R. No. 157163 affirmed both RTC orders, ruling:
- Docket fees were properly paid or could be excused in the interest of justice;
- The action was a personal action and venue in Cebu City was proper;
- Zosima Borbon’s death did not require dismissal;
- Preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues:
- Dismissal of Civil Case No. CEB-26468
- Should the case be dismissed for non-payment of correct docket fees?
- Should the case be dismissed for improper venue?
- Preliminary Injunction
- Was the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioner from foreclosure, taking possession of the chattel, and using the postdated checks legally proper?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)