Case Digest (G.R. No. 188768)
Facts:
TML Gasket Industries, Inc. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 188768, January 07, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner TML Gasket Industries, Inc. (TML) obtained a credit facility from the Bank of Southeast Asia, Inc. (BSA) in September 1996 of up to P85,000,000.00, secured by real estate mortgages over commercial and industrial lots in Parañaque City (TCT Nos. 81278 and 81303), and by several promissory notes executed from September 1996 to July 31, 1997. The promissory notes contained an express acceleration/default clause deeming the borrower in default for failure to pay when due, and a clause authorizing unilateral adjustment of interest under certain economic conditions.During the loan period BSA changed its corporate name to DBS Bank Philippines (DBS) and later merged with BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (BPI), the present respondent. TML admitted it stopped paying the loan and, as of June 25, 2002, its indebtedness to BPI amounted to P71,877,930.56 (excluding penalties, fees, and foreclosure expenses). On October 24, 2002, the Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC, Parañaque City issued a Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale of the mortgaged properties.
TML filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Accounting, Declaration of Nullity of Notice of Extra-Judicial Sale, Increased Interest Rates, Penalty Charges, Damages, and Prayer for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against BPI and DBS in RTC Branch 194, Parañaque City on November 21, 2002. TML alleged it was led to believe that the interest rate would be 16% per annum but BSA/BPI unilaterally imposed rates of 33% and penalties of 36%, and that the true amount due was undetermined; it demanded an independent accounting and argued it could not be in default of an unascertained obligation.
On June 20, 2003 the trial court denied TML’s application for a preliminary injunction, finding TML’s right to the property doubtful given its admitted delinquency and its stated willingness to accept dacion en pago, and noting the availability of the statutory right of redemption. On motion for reconsideration the trial court reversed course and, by orders dated August 22, 2003 and November 27, 2003, granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining BPI’s extrajudicial foreclosure, conditioned on posting a P300,000 bond; the court cited the risk that TML might win the case yet lose the property because of the short statutory redemption period.
BPI filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals, which found grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s issuance of the writ and, in a decision reversing and setting aside the twin trial-court orders, lifted the injunction. The Court of Appeals relied on the admissions...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly find grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining extrajudicial foreclosure?
- Were the requisites for a preliminary injunction — a clear and existing right and its threatened or actual violation — established by petitioner TML such that foreclosure should have been enjoined?
- Does the absence of a detailed statement of account render the debt unliquidated and thus bar BPI ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)