G.R. No. 179665 - Solid Builders, Inc. vs. China Banking Corp.

China Banking Corporation (CBC) granted several loans to Solid Builders, Inc. (SBI) from September 4, 1992 to March 27, 1996 totaling ₱139,999,234.34 (exclusive of interest and charges).
Medina Foods Industries, Inc. (MFII) executed surety agreements and real estate mortgages on Loyola Grand Villas (Quezon City) and New Cubao Central (Cainta, Rizal) to secure the loans.

SBI proposed a 50–50 sale‐proceeds sharing, partial title releases, and loan restructuring. By letter dated March 20, 2000, SBI requested reduced interest and penalties, and a dacion en pago of the New Cubao Central property.
CBC replied (April 17 and May 19, 2000) that the loans had been restructured effective March 1, 1999 in the amount of ₱218,540,646, advised updating of obligations to avoid penalties, and deferred decision on dacion en pago until senior management approval.
On September 18, 2000, CBC demanded settlement of ₱218,540,646 within ten days or referral to lawyers for collection.

On October 5, 2000, SBI and MFII filed Civil Case No. 68105 (RTC Pasig, Br. 264), praying to compel contract performance, for damages, and for an ex parte TRO/preliminary injunction to enjoin CBC from foreclosure.
RTC granted the preliminary injunction on December 14, 2000 (subject to ₱2 million bond), denied reconsideration (Dec 10, 2001), and denied a motion to dissolve the injunction (Nov 10, 2003).
CBC petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP 81968). The CA, by Decision dated April 16, 2007, found grave abuse of discretion, dissolved the injunction, and denied reconsideration on September 18, 2007.

SBI and MFII filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing CBC’s judicial admissions, alleged usurious interest, and Article 1229.
CBC contended the petition raised factual issues not cognizable under Rule 45 and that the CA correctly exercised discretion.
On April 3, 2013, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dissolution of the preliminary injunction.

Did the RTC abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction to enjoin CBC from foreclosing mortgage despite SBI’s unpaid promissory notes and alleged unconscionable interest?
Did the CA correctly dissolve the preliminary injunction for lack of a clear legal right and absence of irreparable injury?
Does an allegation of usurious or iniquitous interest, enforceable only under Article 1229, justify injunctive relief pending trial on the merits?
Does foreclosure of mortgaged property constitute an irreparable injury warranting a preliminary injunction?