Bpi v. Hon. Hontanosas

7/24/2019 Bpi v. Hon. Hontanosas

1/21

Today is Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIISI!"

63 June 25, 2014

P!"!PP!NE !S"AN#S,Petitioner,

AGAP!TO ". ONTANOSAS, JR., REG!ONA" TR!A" COURT, BRANC

O BORBON, SPOUSES &ER&ES AN# ER"!N#A FACU"TA#, AN# &M

NT CORPORAT!ON,Respondents#

D $ % I S I ! "

:

d not issue e'cept upon a clear sho(in) that the applicant has a ri)ht inthat the acts sou)ht to be en&oined are *iolati*e of such ri)ht# + preliinarine the erits of a case, or decide contro*erted facts, for, bein) a prepre*ent threatened (ron), further in&ury, and irreparable har or in&ustic

an be settled#

The %ase

t the instance of the defendant, no( the petitioner herein, is the decision


2/21

hereby the %ourt of +ppeals %+ upheld the order issuedon /uly 3, 2007 entitled Spouses Sil*erio 8 9osia 4orbon, et al# *# 4an- of the Philipp%ourt RT%, 4ranch 16, in %ebu %ity, presided by :on# /ud)e +)apito ;

+ntecedents

01, respondents Spouses Sil*erio and 9osia 4orbon, Spouses ththe loan, they had constituted real estate ort)a)es on se*eral parcels > and that they had been ade to si)n a continuin) surety a)reeent aneir Mitsubishi Pa&ero#

the respondents=obli)ation to the petitioner had reached P1?,7@,11#to pay P1@ Million because they had been ad*ersely affected by the ecohe petitioner reAuired the to issue postdated chec-s to co*er the loan he ort)a)es# Thus, the coplaint sou)ht a TR! or a (rit of preliinaryned foreclosure#

1, the petitioner filed its ans(er (ith affirati*e defenses and counterclae issuance of the (rit of preliinary in&unction, contendin) that the forecl

(ithin itsle)al ri)ht to do#2

2001 the petitioner filed a otion to disiss reiteratin) its affirati*e de

+T T:$ %!MP;+I"T S:!.;D 4$ DISMISS$D 4$%+.S$ $".$ IS
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt2


3/21

!P$R;C;+ID# R.;$ 16, S$%IT!" 1, P+R+R+P: %>

+T T:$ %!.RT :+S "!T+%E.IR$D /.RISDI%TI!" !$R T:$ S.4

$ %;+IM 4$%+.S$ T:$ PR!P$R ;$+; F$$S :+S "!T 4$$" P+I!RD+"%$ IT: R.;$ 1, !F T:$ R.;$S !F %!.RT +"D %IR%.;+S.PR$M$ %!.RT, S$RI$S !F 177>

+T 9!SIM+ 4!R4!"=S %!MP;+I"T S:!.;D 4$ DISMISS$D 4$%+M+ 4!R4!" :+S "! ;$+; P$RS!"+;ITC T! S.$ 4$I" D$%$+;+I"TIFF SI;$RI! 4!R4!"# R.;$ 16, S$%TI!" 1d>

+T T:$ $ST+T$ !F 9!SIM+ 4!R4!" 4$I" +" I"DISP$"S+4;$ PP;+I"T S:!.;D 4$ +M$"D$D T! I"%;.D$ T:$ $ST+T$ !F 9!SIM$ 16, S$%TI!" 1&>

+T T:$ %!MP;+I"T !FP;+I"TIFF

+T T:$ P;$+DI" +SS$RTI" T:$ %;+IM ST+T$S "! %+.S$ !F

, the RT% denied the petitioner=s otion to disissfor bein) uneritorios= application for preliinary in&unction,3to (itB

preises considered, the application for preliinary in&unction is R+"pplicants of a bond in the aount of P2,000,000 in fa*or of defendant to

pay to ad*erse party all daa)es (hich it ay sustain by reason of the iary in&unction be issued directin) the defendant and its a)ents or represe

st fro coencin) foreclosure and sale proceedin)s of the ort)a)edon of the Mitsubishi Pa&ero sub&ect of the chattel ort)a)e> and fro ust5dated chec-s as e*idence for the filin) of coplaint a)ainst plaintiffs Fas Pabansa 4l)# 22, (hile the present case is pendin) liti)ation#


4/21

iinary in&unction shall continue until further orders fro the %ourt#

es of this !rder#

#6

denied the petitioner=s otion for reconsideration throu)h its order?of +u

Rulin) of the %+

e petitioner assailed the orders of the RT% by petition for certiorariin the ofB

"!T T:$ P.4;I% R$SP!"D$"T %!MMITT$D R+$ +4.S$ !F D$D +" !RD$R D$"CI" T:$ M!TI!" T! DISMISS +"D R+"TI"M+"D+T!RC I"/."%TI!"#

2, ho(e*er, the %+rendered the ad*erse decision under re*ie(, to (itB

preises considered, the assailed order of the Re)ional Trial %ourt RT

d /uly 3, 2001 and +u)ust 22, 2001 are hereby +FFIRM$D# ;et the ori)anded iediately to the court a Auo for further proceedin)s# S! !RD

at the petitioner=s a*erent of non5payent of the proper doc-et fee by n %i*il %ase "o# %$452667 (as not substantiated> that e*en if the corrpaid, the strict application of the rule thereon could be iti)ated in the int %i*il %ase "o# %$452667, bein) a personal action, (as properly filed

ent that althou)h there (as a *alid transfer of interest sissal of the coplaint(ould not be in order because it (as perissiblaction in the nae of the ori)inal party>11and that the RT% did not couin) the (rit of preliinary in&unction because it thereby only applied the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt11


5/21

ce#12

the petitioner=s otion for reconsiderationthrou)h its resolution of Febru

peal, (ith the petitioner positin) as follo(sB

ether or not %i*il %ase "o# %$452667 should be disissed for a non5t aount of doc-et fee> and b iproper *enue>1

ether or not the issuance of the (rit of preliinary in&unction a)ainst the

s and representati*es, (as in order#

Rulin) of the %ourt

artly eritorious#

o# %$452667 (as a personal action> hence, *enue (as properly laid

e RT% held that %i*il %ase "o# %$452667, bein) for the declaration of t

and its accopanyin) continuin) surety a)reeent, and the real estates a personal action> hence, its filin) in %ebu %ity, the place of business oorrect under Section 2, Rule of the Rules of %ourt#

ontends, ho(e*er, that %i*il %ase "o# %$452667 (as a real action thad tried in the proper court ha*in) &urisdiction o*er the area (herein the rortion thereof, (as situated> and thatconseAuently the filin) and doc-et fd be based on the *alue of the property as stated in the certificate of sal

lo(er courts= holdin)s#

nts of (hether an action is of a real or a personal nature ha*e been fi'edant &urisprudence# +ccordin) to Section 1, Rule of the Rules of %ourt, a
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt14


6/21

title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein# Such actiond tried in the proper court ha*in) &urisdiction o*er the area (herein the r

ortion thereof, is situated, (hich e'plains (hy the action is also referred t

ontrast, the Rules of %ourtdeclares all other actionsas personal actions#ose brou)ht for the reco*ery of personal property, or for the enforceentaa)es for its breach, or for the reco*ery of daa)es for the coissioroperty#16The *enue of a personal action isthe place (here the plaintiff offs resides,or (here the defendant or any of the principal defendants resesident defendant (here he ay be found, at the election of the plaintiffon is considered a transitory one#

n %i*il %ase "o# %$452667 pertinently alle)ed as follo(sB17

' ' ' '

aintiffs si)ned blan- pre5printed fors of proissory note no# 30123@500a)reeent, real estate ort)a)es, chattel ort)a)e (hich *iolates the lity of contracts# These contracts are in the nature of contracts of adhesions fa*ourin) defendant ban- and plaintiffs had nothin) to do e'cept to

ations (hich should be declared as ".;; +"D !ID# These contracts d)reeent of the parties and the stipulations are tilted infa*or of defendan

oreo*er, these real estate ort)a)es, chattel ort)a)es and continuin) ent are securin) specific aounts of obli)ation and upon the payent endant ban-, autoatically, these becae functus de oficioand should bdiately (ithout the encubrance#

the chattel ort)a)e in*ol*in) the Mitsubishi Pa&ero secured only P600ation of ore than P700,000#00 principal payent, the sae becae nudant ban- should be ordered to cancel the ort)a)e and to be directed priate action to ta-e possession#

addition, Penban- %hec-s "os# 112@? to 1122 (ith aounts of P200,0


7/21

hec- "os# 0107 8 010 (ith aounts of P00,000#00 each, issuedntiffs Facultad and (ithout any consideration, should be declared null andant ban- should be directed not to deposit the saefor collection (ith t

' ' ' '

rtherore, the total obli)ation of plaintiffs is *oid and baseless because ipositions of e'orbitant interest and e'cessi*e char)es# Interest (as c

pal (hich in turn earns interest# These ille)al ipositions are consideredudence as null and *oid# These e'cessi*e interest and char)es should b

pal unless there isapplication, defendant ban- is enrichin) itself at the e'

ffs# ' ' ' '

foreAuoted alle)ations of the coplaintin %i*il %ase "o# %$452667, theation of the proissory notes, continuin) surety a)reeent, chec-s andbein) e'ecuted a)ainst their (ill and *itiated by irre)ularities, not the retle to the properties burdened by the ort)a)es# There (as no alle)atio

he properties under the ort)a)es had already been transferred to the pyin) the deterinants, %i*il %ase "o# %$452667 (as unAuestionably a

%hua *# Total !ffice Products and Ser*ices Topros,Inc#B1

he rule that an action to annul a contract of loan and its accessory real eon# In a personal action, the plaintiff see-s the reco*ery of personal propa contractor the reco*ery of daa)es# In contrast, in a real action, the pproperty, or, as indicated in Section 2 a, Rule of the then Rules of %on affectin) title to real property or for the reco*ery of possession, or for

of, or foreclosure of ort)a)e on, real property#

case, relied upon by petitioner, the contract of sale of the fishpond (as a- of consideration# e held that there bein) no contract to be)in (ith, th(e deeed the action for annulent of the said fictitious contract thereineal action for the reco*ery of the fishpond sub&ect thereof#


8/21

(e*er, apply the fore)oin) doctrine to the instant case# "ote that in Pasche sub&ect fishpond had already passed to the *endee# There (as, thered fishpond# 4ut in the instant case, o(nership of the parcels of land sub&

estateort)a)e (as ne*er transferred to petitioner, but reained (ith Tor the reco*ery of real property is in*ol*ed# This bein) the case, T!PR!e contracts of loan and real estate ort)a)e reains a personal action#

' ' ' '

ppeals finds that :ernande *# Rural 4an- of ;ucena, Inc#pro*ides the pr:ernande, appellants contended that the action of the :ernande spou

the ort)a)e on their lots (as a real action affectin) title to real propertyin the place (here the ort)a)ed lots (ere situated# Rule , Section 2 (as applied, to (itB

in %ourts of First Instance# J a Real actions# J +ctions affectin) title to,or for partition or condenation of, or foreclosure of ort)a)e on, real pd tried in the pro*ince (here the property or any part thereof lies#

ed out in the :ernandecase that (ith respect to ort)a)e, the rule on tion for foreclosure of a real estate ort)a)e# It does not include an actia real estate ort)a)e# $'clusio unios est inclusio alterius# The latter thuon on personal actions under para)raph b of the abo*e5cited section,

sonal actions# J +ll other actions ay be coenced and tried (here thndants resides or ay be found, or (here the plaintiff or any of the plainhe plaintiff#

n, the action for annulent of a real estate ort)a)e in the present casele , to (itB

of personal actions# J +ll other actions ay be coenced and tried (hncipal plaintiffs resides, or(here the defendant or any of the principal de


9/21

e case of a nonresident defendant (here he ay be found, at the electi

y, (here the parties reside, is the proper *enue of the action to nullify the

ort)a)e contracts# The %ourt of +ppeals coitted no re*ersible erroe)ional Trial %ourt denyin) petitioner=s otion to disiss the case on thee#

al action, therefore, %i*il %ase "o# %$452667 (as properly brou)ht in tpondent bta-in) possession, by reple*in, depositin) the postdated chec-s> that respondents Spouses Facultad (eparable in&ury should the petitioner foreclose the ort)a)es and file cri4atas Pabansa 4l)#22 a)ainst the> and that such threatened acts, if dal the &ud)ent of the trial court#20They prayed that the petitioner be en&disturb their aterial possession of the ort)a)ed properties, anifestiost a bond for the issuance of the (rit of preliinary in&unction#21

the RT% issued the (rit of preliinary in&unction on /uly 16, 2001 based

e respondents= application,22

and the %+ upheld the issuance in its assa

ubits that the issuance of the (rit of preliinary in&unction constituted %ircular +% "o# 0?5 dated /une 23, 1, and thus sub&ected responanction>2that in&unction could not issue to en&oin the prosecution of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt24


10/21

prosecution (as ibued (ith public interest>23and that the petitioner, as tohibited fro e'ercisin) its le)al ri)ht to foreclose the ort)a)es becaus(as its proper reedy under the la(#26

(as issued as a )uideline for lo(er court &ud)es in the issuance of TR!snctions to pre*ent the ipleentation of infrastructure pro&ects, or the seedin)s by the 4ureau of %ustos, *iB

I$ %IR%.;+R "!# 0?5 /une 23, 1

$S !F ;!$R %!.RTS R$B $


11/21

717 distinctly pro*ides that KGnHo court in the Philippines shall ha*e &urisdorder, preliinary in&unction, or preliinary andatory in&unction in any n*ol*in)an infrastructure pro&ect # # # of the )o*ernent, # # # to prohibit an

or )o*ernent official fro proceedin) (ith, or continuin) the e'ecutionof any such pro&ect # # # or pursuin) any la(ful acti*ity necessary for sucor operation#K +t the ris- of bein) repetitious, (e stress that the fore)oinssly depri*es courts of &urisdiction to issue in&uncti*e (rits a)ainst the iinfrastructure pro&ect#

s further in*ited to %ircular "o# 675, issued on @ "o*eber 1 by thdinistrator Reynaldo ;# Suare, on the sub&ect KStrict !bser*ance of S

d by %ircular "o# 1@5@ dated March 3, 1@, and %ircular "o# 2052 da

should ne*er for)et (hat the %ourt cate)orically declared in Mison *# "aG12H that KGbHy e'press pro*ision of la(, aply supported by (ell5sett

he %ollector of %ustos has e'clusi*e &urisdiction o*er seiure and forfend re)ular courts cannot interfere (ith his e'ercise thereof or stifleor put

e %ourt +dinistrator shall see to it that this circular is iediately dissepleentation thereof#

R+"%$ +"D %!MP;I+"%$ of this %ircular is hereby en&oined#

(as irrele*ant herein, ho(e*er, because %i*il %ase "o# %$452667 did nof infrastructure pro&ects, or the seiure and forfeiture proceedin)s by theAuently, the petitioner=s ur)in) that respondent /ud)e be held adinist

# 0?5 (as isplaced#

T%=s issuance of the (rit of preliinary in&unction to en&oin the petitionesure of the ort)a)es (as plainly erroneous and un(arranted#

&unction is an order )ranted at any sta)e of an action prior to the &ud)e


12/21

y or a court, a)ency or a person to refrain fro a particular act or acts#2?an e'traordinary pereptory reedy that ust be used (ith e'tree cauecti*e ri)hts of the parties#27The reAuireents for the issuance of a (rit

R! are enuerated in Section @, Rule 37 of the Rules of %ourt, to (itB

nds for issuance of preliinary in&unction# 5 + preliinary in&unction aylishedB

at the applicant is entitled to the relief deanded, and the (hole or part sts in restrainin) the coission or continuance of the act or acts copln) the perforance of an act or acts, eitherfor a liited period or perpet

at the coission, continuance or non5perforance of the act or acts co the liti)ation (ould probably (or- in&ustice to the applicant> or

at a party, court, a)ency or a person is doin), threatenin), or is atteptinrin) or sufferin) to be done, soe act or acts probably in *iolation of the ant respectin) the sub&ect of the action or proceedin), and tendin) to renent ineffectual#

ent of 4utuan *# %onsolidated 4roadcastin) Syste %4S, Inc#, 2the %cept of a (rit of preliinary in&unction, as follo(sB

&unction is an order )ranted at any sta)e of an action or proceedin) prioAuirin) a party or a court, an a)ency, or a person to refrain fro a particue the perforance of a particular act or acts, in (hich case it is -no(n a

nction# Thus, a prohibitory in&unction is one that coands a party to ref

(hile a andatory in&unction coands the perforance of soe positi*st#

table reedies, in&unction ust be issued only at the instance of a party st in or title to the ri)ht or the property sou)ht to be protected# It is propears to be entitled to the relief deanded in the coplaint, (hich ust a*e


13/21

the *iolation of the ri)ht, or (hose a*erents ust in the iniu consf a ri)ht to the final relief sou)ht# +ccordin)ly, the conditions for the issuareB a that the ri)ht to be protected e'ists pria facie> b that the act so

ati*e of that ri)ht> and c that there is an ur)ent and paraount necessitdaa)e# +n in&unction (ill not issue to protect a ri)ht not in esse, or a r

ent and ay ne*er arise> or to restrain an act (hich does not )i*e rise toe*ent the perpetration of an act prohibited bystatute# Indeed, a ri)ht, to bns a ri)ht clearly founded on or )ranted by la( or is enforceable as a aied

stances a*erred in the coplaintin %i*il %ase "o# %$452667, the issu

n&unction upon the application of the respondents (as iproper# They hareal estate and chattel ort)a)es to secure the perforance of their loand, as such, they (ere fully a(are of the conseAuences on their ri)hts inrals should the loan secured be unpaid# The foreclosure of the ort)a)ed by la( for the ort)a)ee to e'act payent#@0In fact, they did not dispuations that they had not fully paid their obli)ation, and that %i*il %ase "rou)ht by the in order to sta*e off the ipendin) foreclosure of the o

hat they had been copelled to si)n pre5printed standard ban- loan for

e trial courts are )i*en )enerous latitude to act on applications for the in&conflictin) clais in an application for the (rit ore often than not in*ol*

hat is not the function of the appellate courts>@1and that the e'ercise of sourts in in&uncti*e atters ou)ht not to be interfered (ith e'cept(hen theless, the e'ercise of such discretion ust be sound, that is, the issuan

onary, should be upon the )rounds and in the anner pro*ided by la(#@@

ind that the (rit of preliinary in&unction is issued uponthe satisfaction

elyB 1 the ri)ht to be protected e'ists pria facie> and 2 the acts sou)olati*e of that ri)ht# +ccordin) toSaulo) *# %ourt of +ppeals, @the applicast or ri)ht to be protected, but it is enou)h thatB5
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt34


14/21

urt to act, there ust be an e'istin) basis of facts affordin) a present ri)hned by an act sou)ht to be en&oined# +nd (hile a clear sho(in) ofthe ri)'istence need not be conclusi*ely established# In fact, the e*idence to b

ry in&unction at the hearin) thereon need not be conclusi*e or coplete ended erely to )i*e the court an idea of the &ustification for the preliincision of the case on the erits# This should really be so since our concety of the preliinary in&unction and not the erits of the case still pendin

tled to the (rit ofpreliinary in&unction, the pri*ate respondent needs onble ri)ht to the final relief prayed for in its coplaint ' ' '#

hat the po(er to issue a (rit of in&unction is to be e'ercised only (here tfor are clearly established, and only in cases reasonably free fro doubnction should not deterine the erits of a case,@6or decide contro*erteedy, in&unction only see-s to pre*ent threatened (ron), @7further in&ury,@ace1until the ri)hts of the parties can be settled# 1wphi1+s an ancillary and pre*d to by a party to protect or preser*e his ri)hts durin) the pendency of thno other purpose#2Such relief (ill accordin)ly protect the ability of the coision>@it (ill further ser*e to )uard a)ainst a chan)e of circustances thrantin) of proper relief after a trial on the erits#erily, its essential funatus Auo bet(een the parties until the erits of the case can be heard#3

pplicant ust pro*e that the *iolation sou)ht to be pre*ented (ould cauhe respondents failed to establish the irreparable in&ury they (ould suffen&unction not be issued# Theyprincipally feared the loss of their possessioe ort)a)ed properties, and faced the possibility of a criinal prosecuti

hey issued# 4ut such fear of potential loss ofpossession and o(nership, ution did not constitute the reAuisite irreparable in&ury that could ha*e (a(rit of in&unction# K+n in&ury is considered irreparable,K accordin) to Phil

oy Technolo)y %orporation,?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_157163_2014.html#fnt47


15/21

uch constant and freAuent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress rt of la(, or (here there is no standard by (hich their aount canbe euracy, that is, it is not susceptible of atheatical coputation# The pro

n&unction ay only be resorted to (hen there is a pressin) necessity to a(hich cannot be reedied under any standard of copensation#

) fearedby the herein respondents is not of such nature# .ltiately, the aban- shall be entitled (ill be deterined by the disposition of the trial coe# e ha*e e'plained in $Auitable P%I 4an-, Inc# *# !/Mar- Tradin), In

n) ort)a)ors (hose properties (ere foreclosed by creditors5ort)a)eel not be depri*ed outri)htly of their property, )i*en the ri)ht of redeptio

la(# Moreo*er, in e'tra&udicial foreclosures, ort)a)ors ha*e the ri)ht toellin) price# Thus, if the ort)a)ee is retainin) ore of the proceeds of ts fact alone (ill not affect the *alidity of the sale but (ill )i*e the ort)a

er such surplus#

le, the courts (ill not issue (rits of prohibition or in&unction J (hether preoin or restrain any criinal prosecution#74ut there are e'tree cases in

he )eneral rule ha*e been reco)nied, includin)B 1 (hen the in&unctione protection to the constitutional ri)hts of the accused> 2 (hen it is necetration of &ustice or to a*oid oppression or ultiplicity of actions> @ (he

stion that is sub &udice> (hen the acts of the officer are (ithout or in ehen the prosecution is under an in*alid la(, ordinance or re)ulation> 6 (arly apparent> ? (hen the court has no &urisdiction o*er the offense> 7 ather than prosecution> (hen the char)es are anifestly false and

nce> and 10 (hen there is clearly no pria faciecase a)ainst the accus

t )round has been denied#

:o(e*er, the respondents did not sufficient2667 cae under any of the fore)oin) e'ceptions# :ence, the issuanc

inary in&unction to en&oin the petitioner fro institutin) criinal coplai)ainst the respondents (as un(arranted#

ould reeber that an in&unction should not be )ranted li)htly or precipit


16/21

on the freedo of the defendantLs action# It should be )ranted only (heat the la( perits it and the eer)ency deands it,30for no po(er e'ist

e, (hich reAuires )reater caution and deliberation, or is ore dan)erous

ssuance of an in&unction#31

ore)oin), the %+ )rossly erred in not declarin) that the RT% coitted )antin) the application of the respondents as the plaintiffs in %i*il %ase "oently disre)arded the aforecited (ell5-no(n nors and )uidelines )o*e(rit of in&unction# Thereby, the RT% acted capriciously and arbitrarily#

ns either that the &udicial or Auasi5&udicial po(er (as e'ercised in an arbson of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent &ud)e, tribuna

*e duty, or *irtually refused to perfor the duty en&oined or to act in contuch &ud)e, tribunal or board e'ercisin) &udicial or Auasi5&udicial po(ers ahisical anner as to be eAui*alent to lac- of &urisdiction#32

the %ourt P+RTI+;;C R+"TS the petition for re*ie( on certiorari> M!l)ated on /uly , 2002 by annullin) and settin) aside the (rit of preliin%$452667 issued by the Re)ional Trial %ourt, 4ranch 16, in %ebu %ity e)al bases> !RD$RS the Re)ional Trial %ourt, 4ranch 16, in %ebu %ity t %ase "o# %$452667> and DIR$%TS the respondents to pay the costs

#

RSAM!N

ce

MAR!A "OUR#ES P. A. SERENO

%hief /ustice

!TA J. "EONAR#O(#E CASTRO

+ssociate /usticeMART!N S. %!""ARAMA,

+ssociate /ustice


17/21

B!EN%EN!#O ". RE$ES

+ssociate /ustice

% $ R T I F I % + T I ! "

ction 1@, +rticle III of the %onstitution, I certify that the conclusions in theen reached in consultation before the case (as assi)ned to the (riter osion#

#ES P. A. SERENO

, pp# 1?517?> penned by +ssociate /ustice $u)enio S# ;abitoria retired+ssociate /ustice Teodoro P# Re)inoretired and +ssociate /ustice /uand#

1325160#

1715172#

1651?0#

1?1#

1?0#

1??#

176#

17@#


18/21

t 17#

t 175173#

t 176#

t 2@#

t 2#

ion 2, Rule of the Rules of %ourt#

ande *# De*elopent 4an- of the Phil#, "o# ;5@103, /une 17, 1?6, ?@#

ion 2, Rule of the Rules of %ourt> see also !rbeta *# !rbeta, #R# "o# ber 2?, 2006, 307 S%R+ 263, 267#

o, pp# 13516#

"o# 132707, Septeber @0, 2003, ?1 S%R+ 300, 30?530#

o, p# 1?#

t 1?1#

t 1735176#

t 2?5@0#

t @0#

t @2#


19/21

ion 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of %ourt#

a 4an-in) %orporation *# %iriaco, #R# "o# 1?00@7, /uly 11, 2012, 6?6 S

"o# 13?@13, Deceber 1,2010, 6@6 S%R+@20, @@65@@?#

a 4an-in) %orporation *# %ourt of +ppeals,#R# "o# 121137, Deceber + @2?, @@ K''' !n the face of the clear adission by pri*ate respondene to settle their obli)ations (hich (ere secured by the ort)a)es, petitiori)ht to foreclose the ort)a)es (hich is a reedy pro*ided by la(#

anes /r# *# %ourt of +ppeals, #R# "o# 11?6, March 27, 2001, @33 S%R

rth %oodities %orp# *# %ourt of +ppeals, #R# "o# 6220, March @1, 127> S 8 + aisano, Incorporated *# :idal)o, #R# "o# 70@?, Deceber2, 22> enoblao *# %ourt of +ppeals, #R# "o# ?@0@, /une 20, 17@@> Detecti*e and Protecti*e 4ureau, Inc# *# %loribel, "o# ;52@27, "o*eR+ 233, 266#

ublic Telecounications :oldin)s, Inc# *# %ourt of +ppeals, #R# "o# 1@, @02 S%R+ 0@, 0#

"o# 116, Septeber 17, 16, 262 S%R+ 31, 60#

/S In&unctions 13#

/S In&unctions 3, citin) 4# # Photo .tilities *# Republic Moldin) %orpo

270 F# 2d 706> Duc-(orth *# /aes, %# +# a# 26? F# 2d 22> estin)houration *# Free Se(in) Machine %o#, %# +# Ill, 236 F# 2d 706#

/S In&unctions 3, citin) ;oner)an *# %rucible Steel %o# of +erica, 222d 3> %opton *# Paul N# :ardin) Realty %o#, 2@1 "# $# 2d 26?, 7? Ill#


20/21

s-in Products, Inc# *# .nited Paper %o#, %# +# Ill#, 13 F# 2d @36> 4enson s, %# %# +# Minn#, 167 F# 2d 6> Spic-eran *# Sproul, @27 P# 2d 7?, 1@d States *# "ational Plasti-(ear Fashions, D# %# "# C#, 12@ F# Supp# ?1#

eer Placeent of hite Plains, Inc# *# aus, @3 "# C# S# 2d ?6, ?? iscin *# %ity of %hica)o, @20 "# $# 2d 202, 2@ Ill# +pp# @d ??> :# N# :# De*eration *# Metropolitan Sanitary District of reater %hica)o, 16 "# $#, 2d

bitors Poster $'chan)e, Inc#*# "ational Screen Ser*ice %orp#, %# +# ;a#, e %oo-s 8 Ste(ards, +F; *# Panaa S# S# %o#, %# +# ash#, 267 F# 2d

of %le*eland *# Di*ision 267 of +al)aated +ssociation of St# $lec# Ry!f +erica, 71 "# $# 2d @10, 7 !hio +pp# @> Slott *# Plastic Fabricator02 Pa# @@#

ayo Fars, Inc# *# %ourt of +ppeals, #R# "o# 10037, +u)ust 1, 2002, @%hina 4an-in) %orporation *# %ourt of +ppeals, #R# "o# 121137, Dece+ @2?, @@> 4en)on *# %ourt of +ppeals, "o# ;572367, May @1, 177, 16

%alo *# Roldan, ?6 Phil# 3, 31532 16#

*# Sanitas Ser*ice %orporation, %# +# Te'#, 311 F# 2d 633> obel *# ;ain2 !hio +pp# 2d @#

ed States *# +dler=s %reaery, %# %# +# "# C#, 10? F# 2d 7?> +erican M+# "# C#, 1 F# 2d 23#

a De*elopent %orporation *# %ourt of +ppeals, #R# "o# 6723, /uly @,

3> +*ila *# Tapucar, #R# "o# 3?, +u)ust 2?, 11, 201 S%R+ 17,

4aOos Rural 4an-, Inc# *# +frica, #R# "o# 1@, /uly 11, 2002, @7 So(er Sites and Si)ns, Inc# *# .nited "eon, #R# "o# 16@06, "o*eber

+ 16, 207#


21/21

"o# 1?7@6?, March 1, 2012, 667 S%R+ 13, 2523#

son *# uin)ona, /r#, #R# "o# 12@30, Deceber 1, 2000, @7 S%R+

table P%I 4an-, Inc# *# !/5Mar- Tradin), Inc#, #R# "o# 16330, +u)ust + ?, 0> Tanduay Distillers, Inc# *# inebra San Mi)uel, Inc#, #R# "o# 16

36 S%R+ 11, 1@351@6#

la5arrido *# Torto)o, #R# "o# 136@37, +u)ust 1?, 2011, 633 S%R+ 33@r#, #R# "o# 13@60, 13?@71 and 1?077, +u)ust 26, 2007, 36@ S%R+ 2

s Santos *# Metropolitan 4an- and Trust %opany, #R# "o# 13@732, !%R+ 10#

o&ect 5 +rellano ;a( Foundation
http://history.back%281%29/

Documents

Bpi v. Hon. Hontanosas