Title
Supreme Court
Solid Builders, Inc. vs. China Banking Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 179665
Decision Date
Apr 3, 2013
SBI and MFII sued CBC over alleged iniquitous interest rates, seeking to prevent foreclosure. SC ruled no clear legal right to injunction, upholding foreclosure due to default.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164437)

SBI’s Restructuring Proposals and CBC’s Letters

In March 2000, SBI requested reduction of interest and penalties, partial release of titles, and dacion en pago of the New Cubao Central property. CBC’s letters of April 17 and May 19, 2000, asserted that the loan had been restructured effective March 1, 1999, detailed prevailing interest and penalty rates, and suggested that SBI’s best recourse was to sell the mortgaged properties itself. A demand letter of September 18, 2000, required full settlement within ten days or face legal collection.

Filing of Complaint and RTC Injunction

RTC Grant of Writ of Preliminary Injunction

On October 5, 2000, SBI and MFII filed a complaint to compel performance and for damages, praying for preliminary injunction against CBC’s foreclosure threats. The RTC, finding prima facie that SBI’s rights over collateral were substantial and that the alleged interest increases were unfair, issued a writ restraining CBC from enforcing its demand letters, conditioned on posting a ₱2 million bond.

Court of Appeals Review

CA Finds Grave Abuse of Discretion in Injunction

CBC’s petition for certiorari to the CA argued that the RTC had no jurisdiction and misapplied the requisites for injunction. In its April 16, 2007 Decision, the CA held that the RTC did not make factual or legal findings to establish a clear right or irreparable injury. It set aside all RTC orders granting and maintaining the injunction, and dissolved the writ. A September 18, 2007 CA resolution denied reconsideration.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

Proper Grant of Writ of Preliminary Injunction?

Whether the RTC acted within its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to prevent foreclosure, given SBI’s alleged usurious interest charges and its default on promissory notes.

Legal Standards for Preliminary Injunction

Requisites Under Rule 58 and Jurisprudence

A preliminary injunction requires a clear and unmistakable right, a substantial invasion of that right, and urgency to prevent irreparable injury. The writ preserves the status quo pending final resolution, and is an extraordinary remedy granted only when legal damages cannot adequately redress the injury.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Rights and Default

Usury Does Not Bar Foreclosure; Right Was Disputable

The Court applied Civil Code Article 1229 to note that even if interest stipulations are unconscionable, the lender’s right to recover principal and foreclose remains. SBI’s entitlement to challenge the fairness of interest would be resolved at trial, not by preliminary injunction. SBI and MFII had defaulted on ten promissory notes matured in 2004, which unequivocally authorized foreclosure. Their ongoing requests to restructure without payment underscored their inability to satisfy obli

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.