Title
Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. vs. Apurillo
Case
G.R. No. 168746
Decision Date
Nov 5, 2009
YKS contested foreclosure by EBC and PCIB over disputed loan amounts, alleging discrepancies and premature demands. RTC granted injunction to halt foreclosure, upheld by higher courts to prevent irreparable harm pending resolution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127957)

Key Dates

Relevant filing and procedural dates included: loan availments and promissory notes between 1997–1998; EBC demand March 12, 2001; EBC petition for extrajudicial sale filed May 23, 2001 (EJF No. 1399); PCIB demand January 23, 2001 and petition for sale filed May 23, 2001; sheriff’s notices setting sale for June 29, 2001; YKS complaint filed June 19, 2001 (Civil Case No. 2001-06-93); RTC temporary restraining order issued June 27, 2001 and preliminary injunction granted December 3, 2001; RTC motion for reconsideration denied May 20, 2004; Court of Appeals decision denying certiorari June 27, 2005; petition to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court’s resolution denying the petition (petition denied; decision affirmed).

Applicable Law and Legal Standards

Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable given decision date). Procedural and substantive authorities expressly cited in the record: Rules of Court (Rule 58, Sec. 3 — grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction; Rule 65 — certiorari), standards for certiorari (grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction), and Civil Code provisions that the trial court discussed (Articles 2089 and 2126). The twin requisites for preliminary injunction under Rule 58, Sec. 3 are: (a) existence of an actual, existing right to be protected and (b) probable injustice if the act complained of were to continue during litigation.

EBC Account — Facts and Claims

EBC granted YKS a credit line originally in the amount of P4,000,000, later amended into a P53,000,000 credit line secured by a real estate mortgage on two Tacloban properties (TCT Nos. T-22461 and T-22460). YKS alleged that the loan consideration ballooned to P53,000,000 through amendments and that corporate officers were induced to sign a blank surety agreement later filled to show liability up to P85,000,000. By June 29, 1998, EBC had partially released P10,400,000.00 through specified promissory notes; by March 12, 2001 EBC demanded payment of outstanding obligations, and on May 23, 2001 EBC filed an extrajudicial petition for sale to satisfy P10,400,000.00 (exclusive of interests, penalties, and other charges). Sheriff’s Notice of Extrajudicial Sale set auction for June 29, 2001.

PCIB Account — Facts and Claims

On August 13, 1997, YKS obtained a promissory note (PN No. 095/97-344) for a dollar-denominated loan of US$2,500,000.00 which was converted and released in pesos at approximately P26.00 to the dollar (about P65,000,000.00). The PCIB credit line/loan was secured by mortgages on multiple YKS properties (list of TCT numbers provided). A promissory note dated December 24, 1998 (PN No. 366-00756-98) reflected a total obligation of P140,967,120.36 and a stated maturity by single payment on December 17, 2004; PCIB also credited P103,240,277.90 to YKS’s account on the same date and debited $2,633,680.55 as payment on the converted loan. PCIB’s demand of January 23, 2001 pegged the obligation at P162,295,233.54 (exclusive of interest, penalty, and other charges). PCIB filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure sale on May 23, 2001 and a Sheriff’s Notice set a sale for June 29, 2001.

YKS’s Pleadings and Claims in the RTC (Civil Case No. 2001-06-93)

YKS filed a complaint for declaratory relief, annulment/nullity of foreclosure, release of mortgages, injunction, damages, and related reliefs. YKS alleged defects in the petitions for sale: incorrect claim amounts, inclusion of amounts not covered by the mortgages (including quantified penalties not in the mortgages), doubts as to the validity and consideration of promissory notes relied upon by the banks, and that one PCIB note (PN No. 366-00756-98) had not matured (maturity December 17, 2004) and thus the debt was not yet due. YKS asserted that it was induced to sign blank surety agreements later filled to reflect erroneous amounts and that substantial discrepancies existed among promissory notes, credit memos, and demand letters. YKS sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and prevent foreclosure pending determination of the main action.

RTC Proceedings — TRO and Preliminary Injunction

The RTC issued a temporary restraining order on June 27, 2001, and after hearing parties’ position papers granted a writ of preliminary injunction on December 3, 2001, conditioned on a P3,000,000.00 bond. The injunction enjoined defendants, their agents and any persons acting for them from posting or publishing notices of sale, conducting foreclosure sales, executing certificates of sale, registering same, executing deeds of final sale, paying transfer taxes, or any act that would disturb the status quo ante litem until further order.

RTC’s Rationale for Granting Injunctive Relief

The RTC found that (1) it would be inequitable to allow foreclosure and sale of the two properties mortgaged to EBC to satisfy availments of only P10,400,000.00 out of a P53,000,000.00 credit line and that such action would lead to unjust enrichment; (2) PN No. 366-00756-98 clearly reflected maturity by single payment on 12.17.2004 and therefore the debt was not yet due and demandable at the time of the filing of the petition for sale; and (3) significant variances existed among the amounts stated in the promissory note (P140,967,120.36), the credit memo (P103,240,277.90), and the demand letter (P162,295,233.54), with discrepancies too substantial to ignore. The trial court concluded that only after trial on the merits could the true amount be determined and that continuation of foreclosure proceedings would result in serious injury to YKS and potentially render a favorable judgment ineffectual.

CA Proceedings and Ruling

Petitioner sought certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunction despite lack of clear and convincing right and absence of showing of grave and irreparable injury. The CA denied the petition for certiorari on June 27, 2005, for lack of merit, ordered the RTC to proceed to trial on the merits, and maintained the preliminary injunction in force until the merits were resolved. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s exercise of its sound discretion in issuing the writ.

Supreme Court Issue and Standard of Review

The sole issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining foreclosure and public auction of YKS’s properties during the pendency of the main action. The Court reiterated the governing standards: a preliminary injunction requires a clear showing of an existing right to be protected and the likelihood that continuation of the challenged acts during litigation would work injustice

...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.