Case Digest (G.R. No. 162575)
Facts:
Beatriz Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Beatriz Siok Ping Tang (doing business as Able Transport) entered into two Distributorship Agreements with respondent Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. (SBDI) under which SBDI would sell and deliver petroleum products and petitioner would purchase and pay for them. The Agreements (one-year term, October 2001–October 2002, renewable annually) contained Section 6.3 permitting SBDI to require securities or a performance bond to secure petitioner’s obligations.
To satisfy that provision, petitioner obtained credit lines and bank undertakings from United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), International Exchange Bank (IEBank), Security Bank Corporation (SBC), and an irrevocable domestic standby letter of credit from Asia United Bank (AUB); the banks executed undertakings governing respondent’s drawing. After petitioner allegedly failed to pay, SBDI sought to draw under those bank undertakings.
Petitioner filed separate actions in the Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Civil Case Nos. Q-02-48334 to Q-02-48337) against the banks seeking declaration of nullity of the bank undertakings and a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI); the cases were consolidated. At the November 28, 2002 hearing, bank representatives told the RTC they would abide by the court’s judgment. The RTC (Judge Normandie B. Pizarro) granted a TRO and later, in an Order dated December 17, 2002, issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the banks from releasing funds to SBDI and directed petitioner to post a P10,000,000 bond.
SBDI filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for TRO and PI in the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC Order; petitioner and banks filed pleadings in the CA. On July 4, 2003, the CA issued a TRO in favor of SBDI; on July 11 the CA’s Supplemental Resolution included the AUB standby letter of credit among the undertakings. On October 17, 2003 the CA rendered the assailed Decision annulling the RTC Order and lifting the writ of preliminary injunction; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated March 5, 2004. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in entertaining and deciding respondent SBDI’s petition for certiorari without impleading the banks as indispensable parties?
- Was respondent required to file a motion for reconsideration before invoking certiorari in the Court of Appeals, or did the case fall within an ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)