Case Digest (G.R. No. 164875)
Facts:
The case involves the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) as the petitioner and La Suerte Trading and Industrial Corporation, represented by Edward O. Joson, as the respondent. The events leading to this case began in 1994 when Ricardo Joson, allegedly without the authorization of La Suerte's Board of Directors, mortgaged five parcels of land owned by La Suerte, located in Cabanatuan City and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-34708, T-34709, T-34710, T-34711, and T-37455, to Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC). La Suerte only became aware of this mortgage in 2001 when it received a notice regarding an extra-judicial sale scheduled for August 14, 2001. In response, on August 9, 2001, La Suerte, through its president Edward O. Joson, filed a complaint against FEBTC, BPI (as FEBTC's successor-in-interest), and Numeriano T. Galang, the Ex-Oficio Sheriff, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City. The complaint sought to nullify the mortgage ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 164875)
Facts:
Ownership and Unauthorized Mortgage
- La Suerte Trading and Industrial Corporation (La Suerte) is the registered owner of five parcels of land in Cabanatuan City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-34708, T-34709, T-34710, T-34711, and T-37455.
- In 1994, Ricardo Joson, allegedly without authorization from La Suerte's Board of Directors, mortgaged these properties to Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC).
- La Suerte discovered the mortgage in 2001 when it received a notice of the extra-judicial sale of the properties scheduled for August 14, 2001.
Legal Action by La Suerte
- On August 9, 2001, La Suerte, represented by its president Edward O. Joson, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City against FEBTC, its successor-in-interest Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), and Numeriano T. Galang, Ex-Oficio Sheriff.
- The complaint sought the nullification of the mortgage and the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to stop the scheduled sale.
RTC Proceedings
- On August 10, 2001, the RTC issued an ex parte TRO, enjoining BPI and Sheriff Galang from proceeding with the sale.
- On August 31, 2001, BPI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, and non-compliance with a condition precedent.
- On September 4, 2001, the RTC set the preliminary injunction for hearing but decided to first determine jurisdiction, ordering La Suerte to file a comment on BPI's motion to dismiss.
- On October 11, 2001, the RTC considered the motion to dismiss submitted for resolution but did not take up the preliminary injunction.
- On May 23, 2002, the RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of La Suerte. BPI moved for reconsideration, arguing that no hearing was conducted on the preliminary injunction, violating Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.
- On August 26, 2002, the RTC denied BPI's motion, stating that the prayer for the writ was set for hearing on September 4, 2001, but BPI failed to present evidence.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- BPI elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, arguing that no hearing was conducted on the preliminary injunction.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the RTC heard the parties before issuing the writ and that BPI failed to present sufficient evidence, such as transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs), to prove its claim.
- BPI filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching TSNs of the September 4, 2001, and October 11, 2001 hearings, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion.
Supreme Court Petition
- BPI filed a petition with the Supreme Court, raising the following errors:
- The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition, holding that BPI was given the opportunity to be heard when it was denied due process.
- The Court of Appeals erred in holding that La Suerte was entitled to the injunction based merely on allegations in the complaint.
- The Court of Appeals erred in finding that La Suerte would be damaged if the foreclosure proceeded, when it was BPI that was prejudiced by the failure of the auction sale.
Issue:
- Whether the RTC conducted a hearing on La Suerte's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
- Whether BPI was denied due process in the issuance of the writ.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC's grant of the preliminary injunction.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)