G.R. No. 249353 - Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals

Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) is the petitioner, while College Assurance Plan Philippines, Inc. (CAP), a domestic corporation engaged in selling pre-need educational plans, is one of the respondents.
CAP entered into a trust agreement with PVB in 2002, which formed the basis for the ensuing dispute.
In 2005, CAP filed a petition for corporate rehabilitation which led to the intervention of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as the Rehabilitation Court.

In 2008, CAP’s other trustee banks (Allied Bank and Bank of Commerce) transferred their trust assets to PVB.
Two memoranda dated October 22, 2013 (the “2013 memoranda”) were executed between CAP and PVB, establishing the method and rates for charging trust fees on the assets transferred from the other banks.
A letter dated January 19, 2017, from the court-appointed Rehabilitation Receiver for CAP, expressed reservations regarding the trust fees charged by PVB against CAP, highlighting differing positions between the parties.

On April 21, 2017, the RTC issued a motu proprio Order directing PVB to refund CAP the excess trust fees amounting to ₱50,639,642.94 and to adjust the ongoing trust fee collection in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 memoranda.
PVB responded by filing a Motion for Clarification on May 29, 2017, reiterating that it had correctly charged the fees and sought clarity regarding apparent inconsistencies in the respective correspondences between PVB and CAP.
The RTC, via an Order dated January 10, 2018, clarified that its earlier April 21, 2017 decision was premised on updating the adjustments in the trust fee collection as per the agreed stipulations.
PVB later moved that a clerical error be corrected in the January 10, 2018 Order, arguing that the “true” applicable date should reflect the trust agreement of September 27, 2002 rather than the disputed date in the Order. CAP countered that the reference to 2013 in the dispositive portion confirmed the continued application of the 2013 memoranda.
Ultimately, on August 9, 2018, the RTC reaffirmed its original directive, ordering PVB to refund CAP the excess amount and confirming the applicable trust rates pursuant to the 2013 memoranda.

PVB, aggrieved by the RTC Order, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, challenging the RTC’s August 9, 2018 Order and seeking a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction (TRO/WPI) to halt the refund and adjustment proceedings.
In its Resolution dated October 11, 2018, the CA denied the TRO/WPI, holding that PVB failed to demonstrate a right in need of protection, the occurrence of any irreparable damage, or harm that could not be quantifiable and compensable by damages.
PVB sought reconsideration, but the CA maintained its decision by issuing another Resolution on July 26, 2019, thereby leading to the petition before the Supreme Court for certiorari under Rule 65.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying PVB’s application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction (TRO/WPI).
Whether the denial of the TRO/WPI was justified on the basis that PVB failed to show a right needing protection, the absence of an imminent invasion of such right, and that any potential damage was purely compensable by damages.
The issue also implicitly questioned if ruling on the TRO/WPI request would amount to an academic exercise, particularly in light of the subsequent developments in CA-G.R. SP No. 157608.