Case Digest (G.R. No. 161004)
Facts:
Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 161004, April 14, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.On December 3, 1991, petitioner Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation obtained from respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB) an Omnibus Line of P35 million and a five-year Term Loan of P14 million, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) over Tecnogas’s parcel in Parañaque City covered by TCT No. 122533. The REM expressly authorized PNB, as Tecnogas’s attorney‑in‑fact, to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage in case of default and provided that the mortgage would secure “any and all other obligations” of Tecnogas to PNB, whether contracted before, during or after the mortgage.
Over the years Tecnogas’s indebtedness was increased, renewed and restructured several times. By April 15, 2001 the outstanding obligation, inclusive of interest and penalties, amounted to P205,025,743.59. PNB sent collection letters and, when payment demands went unmet, filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City on August 16, 2001, setting an auction for September 20, 2001.
A day before the scheduled auction, Tecnogas filed Civil Case No. 01‑0330 in the Parañaque RTC for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and sought injunctive relief; the RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), extended it, and on October 8, 2001 granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the foreclosure sale. PNB’s motion to dissolve the injunction was denied by the RTC in an order dated September 11, 2002. PNB then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on November 29, 2002 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 73822).
On July 24, 2003 the CA (Abesamis, J., penned the decision) annulled the RTC’s injunction orders, ruling that Tecnogas’s offer of payment by dacion en pago was not accepted by PNB and therefore did not extinguish the debt; the CA’s Resolution denying reconsideration was filed November 5, 2003. Tecnogas filed a Rule 45 petition for review with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA decision and resolution. Meanwhile, auctions were scheduled for August 17 and 24, 2004; the sale proceeded on August 24, 2004 after a postponement for attempted settlement by Tecnogas.
In the pleadings Tecnogas conceded liability and that PNB had not accepted its dacion en ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the Court of Appeals err in ruling that Tecnogas was not entitled to injunctive relief because its offer of dacion en pago did not extinguish the obligation?
- Did the extrajudicial foreclosure sale render this Rule 45 petition m...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)