G.R. No. 159370 - PALM TREE ESTATES, INC. AND BELLE AIR GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, let a writ of preliminary injunction issue enjoining the defendants, or any person or agents acting for and [in] their behalf, from foreclosing the subject properties of the plaintiffs, and/or from further proceeding with foreclosure under the Petition (Annex W of the Complaint), upon filing by the plaintiffs, and approval by this Court, of an injunction bond in the amount of ONE MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P1,500,000.00) PESOS. [42] Reconsideration of the above order was denied in an Order dated September 3, 2001. Thereafter, PNB filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging that the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Orders dated May 17, 2001 and September 3, 2001. The Court of Appeals, in the assailed Decision dated March 21, 2003, found merit in PNBs petition. According to the Court of Appeals, PTEI and BAGCCI failed to show a clear and unmistakable right which would have necessitated the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, while PNB had the right to extrajudicial foreclosure under the loan agreement when its debtors defaulted in their obligation. [43] Thus, the Court of Appeals granted PNBs petition. Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated August 4, 2003. Hence, this petition. This Court is asked to resolve the issue of whether the writ of injunction was issued by the trial court with grave abuse of discretion, in which case the appellate court correctly set it aside. PTEI and BAGCCI claim that the Court of Appeals should not have given due course to PNBs Petition for Certiorari as such petition violated Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court when it deliberately omitted all the supporting material documents attached to the complaint such as the petition for foreclosure, the real estate mortgage, the loan agreements, and promissory notes. PTEI and BAGCCI question the reversal and setting aside by the Court of Appeals of the orders of the trial court although there was no finding that the trial court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the said orders. PTEI and BAGCCI further assert that the Court of Appeals was wrong in ruling that no clear and unmistakable right in favor of PTEI and BAGCCI was shown to exist. [44] On the other hand, PNB insists that PTEI and BAGCCI failed to establish an indubitable right which was violated by PNB and which ought to be protected by an injunctive writ. They also failed to show that the absence of an injunctive writ would cause them irreparable injury. [45] For PNB, the Court of Appeals therefore correctly ruled that there was no basis for the trial courts issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The petition has no merit. The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides: The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and p