Case Digest (G.R. No. 154188)
Facts:
Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, Asian Bank Corporation, Far East Bank and Trust Company, and United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 154188, June 15, 2005, First Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation (petitioner) and its affiliates had entered into a lease with the Clark Development Corporation in 1994 for the Mimosa Leisure Estate. To finance development, petitioner executed an Omnibus Loan and Security Agreement with respondent banks for a syndicated term loan of US$20,000,000 on June 30, 1997, later amended January 19, 1999; loan advances were evidenced by promissory notes and payable within six years inclusive of a one-year-and-two-quarters grace period.
As security, petitioner pledged US$20M worth of MIPI shares, assigned leasehold rights and other project-related rights. Petitioner received the full loan on July 3, 1997, paid monthly interest through October 1998, then ceased payments. Respondents sent written notices of default and acceleration on January 6 and February 5, 1999, and filed a complaint for foreclosure of leasehold rights on August 27, 1999 (Civil Case No. 9527).
Petitioner moved to dismiss in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing (1) noncompliance with condition precedent / premature filing, (2) defective certification of non-forum shopping because one lender (UCPB) omitted a prior suit, and (3) forum shopping. The RTC (Branch 61, Angeles City) denied the motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, ordering petitioner to answer. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals; the CA dismissed the petition in a Decision dated March 12, 2002 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 3, 2002.
Petitioner brought an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court contesting the CA rulings, arguing...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the complaint defective, such that the complaint should have been dismissed?
- Did the respondent banks engage in forum shopping by filing Civil Case No. 9527 despite an earlier action (Civil Case No. 9510) by UCPB?
- Did respondents have a cause of action in Civil Case No. 9527 — i.e., was petitioner validly in default, were the required notices given, and are fortuitous events/force m...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)