G.R. No. 114951 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs urgently and respectfully pray that the Order dated 23 February 1993 be reconsidered, that the writ of preliminary injunction be immediately reinstated, and that said writ be expanded to enjoin defendants and their deputies, employees and agents from implementing the foreclosure and sheriff's sale of 30 March 1993, including but not limited to (a) the issuance of the certificate of sale, (b) the annotation of the sheriff's sale on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 43131, (c) the filing of any petition for a writ of possession of the subject real property, and (d) the consolidation of title in favor of defendant PCIB. In the meantime and pending the hearing and resolution of this Emergency Motion, plaintiffs urgently and respectfully pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants and their deputies, employees and agents from implementing the foreclosure and sheriff's sale of 30 March 1993, including but not limited to (a) the issuance of the certificate of sale, (b) the annotation of the sheriff's sale on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 43131, and (c) the filing of any petition for writ of possession of the subject real property. [29] The private respondents alleged inter alia that they had not been served with a copy of the second motion of petitioner PCIB for the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued by the court, as well as a copy of the order of the court lifting the same. They also alleged that Atty. Noel M. Malaya was merely their collaborating counsel. Petitioner PCIB opposed the emergency motion of the private respondents, alleging inter alia that the said motion was a mere scrap of paper as the private respondents' counsel of record is Atty. Malaya; the motion was set on Good Friday; the sales at public auction of the Mandaluyong and Valenzuela properties had already been consummated; and that private respondents indulged in forum shopping by earlier filing a complaint in the RTC of Manila in Civil Case No. 93-65135 with a plea for a temporary restraining order to abort the March 18, 1993 sale at public auction of the mortgaged chattels, instead of filing a motion for reconsideration of the February 23, 1993 Order of the RTC in Civil Case No. 91-2495. [30] The private respondents were served with a copy of the said pleading of petitioner PCIB through Atty. Malaya. The private respondents, through the Quisumbing Torres & Evangelista Law Office, filed a reply to the opposition of the petitioners. They alleged inter alia that their emergency motion was not a mere scrap of paper because Atty. Malaya was their collaborating counsel. [31] However, the RTC of Makati did not issue any temporary restraining order. The private respondents filed an amended notice of hearing for their emergency motion on April 13, 1993 at 8:30 a.m. but served a copy thereof on petitioner PCIB only at 11:00 a.m. of the same day. The branch clerk of court reset the hearing of the said motion