G.R. No. 121158 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, ATTYS. REYNALDO M. CABUSORA AND RENATO C. TAGUIAM, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, SPS. SO CHING AND CRISTINA SO, AND NATIVE WEST INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP..

Ruling

Wherefore, premises considered, finding that the circumstances warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs prayer is hereby GRANTED. Consequent thereto, plaintiffs are hereby ordered to post a bond amounting to P1 (ONE) Million to answer for whatever damages defendant may suffer as a consequence of the writ." [9] Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but it was denied in an Order dated September 23, 1993. To annul the trial courts Orders of April 28, 1993 and September 23, 1993, petitioners elevated the case through certiorari and prohibition [10] before public respondent Court of Appeals. [11] In a decision dated January 17, 1995, respondent Court of Appeals held that Administrative Circular No. 3 is the governing rule in extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage, which circular petitioners however failed to follow, and with respect to the publication of the notice of the auction sale, the provisions of P.D. No. 1079 is the applicable statute, [12] which decree petitioners similarly failed to obey. Respondent Court of Appeals did not pass upon the other issues and confined its additional lengthy discussion on the validity of the trial courts issuance of the preliminary injunction, finding the same neither capricious nor whimsical exercise of judgment that could amount to grave abuse of discretion. [13] The Court of Appeals accordingly dismissed the petition, as well as petitioners subsequent motion for reconsideration. [14] Hence, the instant petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court reiterating the grounds raised before respondent court, to wit: "I. PETITIONER CBCS PETITIONS TO EXTRA-JUDICIALLY FORECLOSE THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGES OF JULY 27, 1989 AND AUGUST 10, 1989 THRU PETITIONERS-NOTARIES PUBLIC, AND THE SCHEDULED FORECLOSURE SALE ARE VALID AND LAWFUL; "II. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND PETITIONER CBC HAD EXPRESSLY AGREED TO CONSIDER THE SAME MORTGAGES AS VALID SECURITIES FOR PROMPT AND FULL PAYMENT OF ALL AND ANY OBLIGATIONS OF THE FORMER FROM THE LATTER; "III.THE SUPPOSED VARIANCE IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF UNPAID LOANS IS NOT A VALID BASIS TO ENJOIN THE FORECLOSURE OF THE QUESTIONED MORTGAGES. THE MERE FAILURE TO PAY THE LOAN SECURED BY SAID MORTGAGES IS THE ONLY, SINGLE REASON FOR THEIR LAWFUL FORECLOSURE; "IV. PETITIONER BANK HAD FURNISHED PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WITH COPIES OF DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, AND CHARGED THEM INTERESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PURSUANT TO ITS EXPRESS AGREEMENT WITH THE LATTER; "V. THE P1.0 MILLION INJUNCTION BOND REQUIRED BY THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO ON PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IS GROSSLY AND PATENTLY INADEQUATE." [15] At the outset, the Courts attention is drawn to the fact that since the filing of this suit before the trial court, none of the substantial issues have been resolved. To avoid and gloss over the issues raised by the parties, as what the trial court and respondent Court of Appeals did, would unduly prolong this litigation involving a rather simple