G.R. No. 165662 - Selegna Management and Development Corp. vs. United Coconut Planters Bank

On June 11, 2012, East West Banking Corporation (the Bank) filed a Complaint for Sum of Money with Application for Writ of Preliminary Attachment against Ian Y. Cruz and Paul Andrew Chua Hua, impleading Francisco T. Cruz and Alvin Y. Cruz as unwilling co-plaintiffs. The Bank sought recovery of ₱16,054,541.66 allegedly misappropriated by Paul from the deposit accounts of Francisco and Alvin and credited to Ian’s account to secure a back-to-back loan.
Francisco and Alvin later demanded payment under purported Foreign Exchange Forward Contracts (FEFCs), which the Bank claimed were spurious; an internal audit was conducted, and the Bank alleged a scheme by Paul and Ian to defraud the depositors and the Bank.

At the hearing on the Bank’s application for a writ of preliminary attachment, the Bank’s witness detailed the transactions and confirmed that Ian had repaid the back-to-back loan; Francisco and Alvin’s demand remained unpaid.
In an Order dated May 21, 2013, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 139, Makati granted the writ, finding that the Bank had “a sufficient cause of action” against Ian and Paul.

On August 12, 2013, Ian moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and lack of the Bank’s legal personality (real party in interest), arguing that the deposits belonged to Francisco and Alvin and that the Bank suffered no damage.
In its November 25, 2013 Order, the RTC granted the motion, dismissing the Complaint for (a) failure to state a cause of action, (b) the Bank’s lack of legal personality, and (c) improper joinder of Francisco and Alvin as unwilling co-plaintiffs instead of defendants.

The Bank filed a Notice of Appeal under Rule 41. Respondents moved to dismiss, contending that the dismissal involved pure questions of law and should have been brought via Rule 45 petition.
In its April 24 and December 10, 2015 Resolutions, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction over pure questions of law raised in a Rule 41 appeal.

The Bank filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, alleging that the CA erred in dismissing its Rule 41 appeal as the RTC’s order contained factual findings and mixed questions.

Whether the Bank availed of the correct mode of review in assailing the RTC’s November 25, 2013 Order dismissing its Complaint for failure to state a cause of action and lack of legal personality.