Case Summary (G.R. No. 137898)
Background of the Case
CRBC entered into a contract with the Philippine Government to construct the EDSA Shaw Boulevard Overpass and subsequently subcontracted this work to HI-QUALITY. As part of securing necessary financing for its operations, HI-QUALITY, with the approval of CRBC, assigned its receivables from CRBC to JADEBANK as collateral for loans that included multiple promissory notes executed due to credit accommodations received by HI-QUALITY.
Loans and Promissory Notes
Between February and June 1997, HI-QUALITY executed several promissory notes in favor of JADEBANK, each stipulating high-interest rates and penalties for default. The notes were secured by checks issued by CRBC intended to facilitate the loans. Upon deposit, these checks were dishonored due to various reasons including ‘Stop Payment’ orders and closed accounts.
Initial Legal Action
Subsequently, JADEBANK filed a complaint for collection against HI-QUALITY, its president Helen Ambrosio, and CRBC, alleging that they conspired to defraud JADEBANK out of the loan amounts by providing dishonored checks. The trial court granted a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendants' properties and allowed further proceedings against them.
Motion to Dismiss
CRBC filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that JADEBANK's complaint failed to state a cause of action. CRBC contended that the Deed of Assignment lacked validity since it was contingent on HI-QUALITY meeting its subcontractual obligations, which, at that point, it had not. The trial court initially agreed, stating that while HI-QUALITY had a potential cause of action against CRBC, JADEBANK did not have one against CRBC.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
JADEBANK appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41. CRBC then filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal, claiming it raised only questions of law and, therefore, should have been taken as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. However, the appellate court found that the issues involved both questions of fact and law and denied CRBC's motion.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing JADEBANK's appeal based on a mischaracterization of the legal issues
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 137898)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The petitioner, China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC), seeks the nullification of two resolutions from the Court of Appeals (Special Seventh Division) dated October 29, 1998, and February 5, 1999.
- The resolutions denied CRBC's Motion to Dismiss Appeal and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, respectively, concerning CA-G.R. CV No. 57375 filed by Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank (JADEBANK).
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC), a corporation licensed to operate in the Philippines and contracted for the construction of the EDSA Shaw Boulevard Overpass.
- Respondents:
- Court of Appeals (Special Seventh Division)
- Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank (JADEBANK), which provided loans to Hi-Quality Builders and Traders, Inc. (HI-QUALITY), the subcontractor of CRBC.
Background Facts
- CRBC subcontracted the construction of an overpass to HI-QUALITY, which was led by President Helen Ambrosio.
- A Continuing Suretyship was executed by Ambrosio in favor of JADEBANK to cover HI-QUALITY’s oblig