Title
Diversified Plastic Film System, Inc. vs. Philippine Investment One , Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 236924
Decision Date
Mar 29, 2023
DBP loaned All Asia, which lent to Diversified, secured by MTI. PI-One sought foreclosure; RTC appointed PI-One as trustee. SC ruled improper summons, invalid assignment, and PI-One unqualified as trustee.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 236924)

Background and Loan Transactions

On December 29, 1997, DBP granted All Asia a loan of PHP 265,000,000, which All Asia then re-lent to Diversified under a Continuing Suretyship executed by Diversified's Chairman. Diversified subsequently executed a Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI), establishing security and outlining the trustee responsibilities under the MTI to benefit its lenders. Additional credit facilities and loans were obtained by Diversified in furtherance of its operational needs.

Putative Assignment of Rights

In December 2006, All Asia executed a dation in payment to transfer its rights under the MTI to DBP. On August 10, 2007, DBP assigned the loan to PI-One. When Diversified defaulted on its obligations, PI-One sought to foreclose on the mortgaged properties, leading to Diversified filing for an injunction against such foreclosure.

Initial Legal Proceedings

Following the injunction proceedings, PI-One questioned the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mariveles, which had granted Diversified a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI). PI-One's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was successful, resulting in the dissolution of Diversified's WPI, which the CA found was improperly granted due to the court's misinterpretation of PI-One's rights.

Appointment as Trustee

Subsequently, PI-One petitioned the RTC of Makati City for its appointment as trustee under the MTI, arguing that it was the only remaining creditor following the assignments from DBP and All Asia. Diversified opposed this petition on several grounds, including the improper service of summons, lack of jurisdiction, and the assertion that the position of trustee was to be filled only by the borrower and majority lenders.

RTC Decision and Appeal

The RTC ultimately appointed PI-One as trustee, reasoning that the position had become vacant and PI-One had inherited the associated rights under the assignments. Diversified's attempts to appeal the RTC's decisions were unsuccessful, with the CA affirming the RTC's grant of PI-One's petition.

Jurisdictional Issues Raised

Diversified contended that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to improper service of summons, asserting that such service did not comply with the requirements governing the proper recipients of summons under the Rules of Court. It further argued that the RTC's jurisdiction over the issue of trustee appointment was limited by the MTI, which designated authority in this respect to the borrower and majority of lenders.

Court's Findings on Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's finding that the RTC had the jurisdiction to appoint a trustee under the MTI, particularly under Section 7.08 which allows any lender to seek judicial appointment of a trustee if no successor is appointed within two months of a vacancy. However, it found merit in Diversified's claim of improper service of summons, which rendered the RTC without jurisdiction over Diversified. The service was made to a receiving officer rather than to the appropriate corporate officers as specified.

Invalidity of Assignment

The Court also addressed the assignment between DBP and PI-One, ruling that it was invalid due to non-compliance with the notice requirements stipulated in Section 12 of R.A. No. 9182, which governs

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.