G.R. No. 175145 - SPOUSES ALFREDO and SHIRLEY YAP, vs. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK,[1] SHERIFF RENATO C. FLORA and/or OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs' application for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, and defendants and their representatives are enjoined from proceeding further with the execution, including consolidating title and taking possession thereof, against plaintiffs' real properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. PT-66751, PT-66749, 55469, 45229, 4621, 52987 and 36489. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction shall be issued upon plaintiffs' posting of a bond executed to defendant in the amount of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) to the effect that plaintiffs will pay defendants all damages which the latter may sustain by reason of the injunction if it be ultimately decided that the injunction is unwarranted. [13] On 13 August 2001, upon posting a bond in the amount of three million pesos (P3,000,000.00), Judge Janolo issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. [14] Respondents iBank and Sheriff Flora filed on 29 August 2001 a Motion for Reconsideration [15] of the order granting the Writ of Preliminary Injunction which the trial court denied in an Order dated 21 November 2001. [16] With the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration, respondents iBank and Sheriff Flora filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari , Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction [17] praying that it: (a) issue immediately a temporary restraining order enjoining Judge Janolo from taking any action or conducting any further proceeding on the case; (b) annul the Orders dated 18 July 2001 and 21 November 2001; and (c) order the immediate dismissal of Civil Case No. 68088. In its decision dated 18 July 2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition. [18] It explained that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by Judge Janolo in promulgating the two Orders. It emphasized that its ruling only pertains to the propriety or impropriety of the issuance of the preliminary injunction and has no bearing on the main issues of the case which are still to be resolved on the merits. The Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents iBank and Sheriff Flora was denied for lack of merit. [19] Respondents iBank and Sheriff Flora thereafter filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari which we dismissed. The Court's Resolution dated 7 March 2005 reads: Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for certiorari, the Court Resolves to DISMISS the petition for being a wrong remedy under the Rules and evidently used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Besides, even if treated as a petition under Rule 65 of the said Rules, the same would be dismissed for failure to sufficiently show that the questioned judgment is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. [20] Accordingly, an Entry of Judgment was issued by the Supreme Court certifying that the resolu