Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
Accordingly, we are reiterating our request that arrangements to have these accounts settled within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, otherwise, we shall be constrained to refer the matter to our lawyers for collection. We enclose a Statement of Account as of September 30, 2000 for your reference and guidance. Very truly yours, MERCEDES E. GERMAN (Sgd.) Manager Loans & Discounts Department H.O. [11] On October 5, 2000, claiming that the interests, penalties and charges imposed by CBC were iniquitous and unconscionable and to enjoin CBC from initiating foreclosure proceedings, SBI and MFII filed a Complaint To Compel Execution of Contract and for Performance and Damages, With Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 68105 and assigned to Branch 264. [12] In support of their application for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction, SBI and MFII alleged: IV. APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITH EX- PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER A. GROUND[S] FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1. That [SBI and MFII] are entitled to the reliefs demanded, among which is enjoining/restraining the commission of the acts complained of, the continuance of which will work injustice to the plaintiffs; that such acts are in violation of the rights of plaintiffs and, if not enjoined/restrained, will render the judgment sought herein ineffectual. 2. That under the circumstances, it is necessary to require, through preliminary injunction, [CBC] to refrain from immediately enforcing its letters dated April 17, 2000 and May 19, 2000 and September 18, 2000 during the pendency of this complaint, and 3. That [SBI and MFII] submit that they are exempt from filing of a bond considering that the letters dated April 17, 2000, May 19, 2000 and September 18, 2000 are a patent nullity, and in the event [they are] not, they are willing to post such bond this Honorable Court may determine and under the conditions required by Section 4, Rule 58. [13] In its Answer and Opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, CBC alleged that to implement the agreed restructuring of the loan, SBI executed ten promissory notes stipulating that the interest rate shall be at 18.5% per annum. For its part, MFII executed third party real estate mortgage over its properties in favor of CBC to secure the payment of SBIs restructured loan. As SBI was delinquent in the payment of the principal as well as the interest thereon, CBC demanded settlement of SBIs account. [14] After hearing the parties, the trial court issued an Order dated December 14, 2000 granting the application of SBI and MFII for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The trial court held that SBI and MFII were able to sufficiently comply with the requisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ: It is well-settled that to be entitled to an injunctive writ, a party must sho