Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED; and the respondents are hereby directed to file their answer in the above-entitled case within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. Further, the parties, their assigns, representatives, agents and successors-in-interests are hereby enjoined to maintain the status quo over the subject properties until after the determination of the merits of the petition.
WHEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED; and the respondents are hereby directed to file their answer in the above-entitled case within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. Further, the parties, their assigns, representatives, agents and successors-in-interests are hereby enjoined to maintain the status quo over the subject properties until after the determination of the merits of the petition. [3] After receipt of the foregoing Order, iBank immediately filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the lower court in the Order dated 18 June 2003. According to the court a quo : x x x However, the Court notes in Ayala's Opposition and Rejoinder, that aside from defending the status quo Order, it asks that the Court issue the writ of preliminary injunction it had originally sought. Pursuant to this Court's power to control and amend its processes so as to make them conformable to law and practice (Rule 135, Sec. 5 (g), it has decided to squarely rule on the application. With respect to the plaintiff's application for a writ of preliminary injunction, the requisites are: 1) a right in esse (or the existence of a right to be protected); 2) the act against which the injunction is to be directed is violative of such right (Buayan Cattle Co. vs. Quintillan, 128 SCRA 276; Sales vs. SEC, G.R. No. 54330, 13 January 1989); and 3) irreparable damage. A trial is allowed to determine the foregoing from a "sampling" of the evidence (Olalia vs. Hizon, 196 SCRA 665). This Court is convinced, from the evidence so far presented, of the prima facie presence of the requisites. [4] x x x x PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant International Exchange Bank is DENIED for lack of merit. The petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Upon posting by petitioner and approval by the Court of a bond in the amount of P2,000,000.00 in favor of International Exchange Bank, let a writ of preliminary injunction issue enjoining: a) Private respondent International Exchange Bank and public respondent Sheriff of RTC-Makati, and all those acting on their behalf, or under their instructions, from doing any act committed or intended to be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, pursuant to, or which would otherwise implement the sale of the lands under Ayala's TCT Nos. T-78276 and T-78277, such as but not limited to i) annotating or causing the annotation of the judgment or the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 01-537 on said TCT Nos. T-78276 and T-78277; ii) posting of notices within Baguio City; iii) advertising the sale in a newspaper of general circulation; iv) issuing and presenting for registration, any certificate of sale or deed of sale intended to be registered before with the respondent Register of Deeds of Baguio City; and b) Public respondent Register of Deeds of Baguio City from registering any sale, conveyance or encumbrance based on the Notice of Levy on
G.R. No. 176008 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, SUBSTITUTED BY MERIDIAN (SPV-AMCI) CORPORATION, VS. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK. [G.R. NO. 176131] CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING, VS. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK (NOW UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES). D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 176008 -
CaseG.R. No. 250440 - EKISTICS PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 250440 -
CaseG.R. No. 179914 - SPOUSES REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON, VS. ATTY. REY FERDINAND GARAY AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK.[A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000] ATTY. REY FERDINAND T. GARAY, VS. JUDGE ROLANDO S. VENADAS, SR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 179914 -