In case of my/our failure to pay when due and payable any amount which I/we are obligated to pay under this Note and/or any other obligation which I/we or any of us may owe or hereafterowe to the BANK, or to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) or to any of BPI Subsidiary or Affiliate, such as but not limited to BPI Family Bank, BPI Credit Corporation, BPI Leasing Corporation, BPI Securities Corporation and BPI Express Card Corporation whether as or in case of conviction for a criminal offense with final judgment carrying with it the penalty of civil interdiction affecting me/us, or any of us, or in any of the cases covered by Article 1198 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, then the entire amount outstanding under this Note shall immediately become due and payable without the necessity of notice or demand which I/we hereby waive. Likewise, I/we hereby jointly and severally promise to pay a late payment charge on any overdue amount under this note at the rate of Two percent (2%) per month over and above and in addition to the interest payable under this note.5 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
3. To finance the construction of [its] poultry farm . . . the defendant[-herein respondent] granted the plaintiff a Revolving Credit Line amounting to P7 Million, which was availed of by the plaintiff under the following Promissory Note [including Note No. 1000045-08]:
x x x x
5. x x x [I]t appears indubitably clear, that at the time the defendant[-herein respondent's] lawyer sent a letter to plaintiff dated 27 July 1998, declaring the entire obligation of plaintiff immediately due and demandable [covered by the first Promissory Note], the only loan availment which had already matured was the P2 Million in the Revolving Credit Line, but whose interest was fully paid up to 8 July 1998; x x x
x x x x
7. Defendant's act of accelerating the maturity of plaintiff's entire obligation would not only be in gross bad faith, but also a gross abuse of right, as it has subjected the maturity of the loans to its own whims and caprices, to the damage and great prejudice of the plaintiff; not to mention the fact that it is done in the midst of this present economic crisis and during these difficult times of high and exorbitant interest rates;
8. There is no reason for the defendant to hasten the maturity of the loans, as it would not suffer any prejudice, for the loans both under the Credit Line and the Medium Term Loan are secured with collaterals and whatever amount due can very well be taken cared of by the same; on the contrary, it is plaintiff who would suffer the most;
9. Surprisingly, defendant BPI Agribank filed with the office of the RTC Sheriff, Ozamiz City, an application for Extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties, which foreclosure will undoubtedly work undeniable injustice and serious irreparable damage to plaintiff. Hence, this instant complaint asking this Honorable Court to maintain the status quo and cease and desist from taking any further action in connection with the application for foreclosure against plaintiff[.]11 (emphasis and underscoring supplied),
- Immediately after the filing of the complaint and before hearing, a writ of preliminary injunction/temporary order be issued ordering the defendant BPI Agribank to maintain the status quo and cease and desist from taking any further action against plaintiff by collecting his loan obligation particularly by foreclosing the mortgaged properties; and furthermore, ordering the defendant Ex-Officio Sheriff of Ozamiz City to cease and desist from taking any further action in connection with defendant's application for foreclosure;
- After due hearing:
2.1 Ordering the preliminary injunction permanent;
2.2. Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of no less than P500,000 as moral damages, P100,000 as actual damages; P100,000 as exemplary damages and P50,000 as attorney's fees.- Plaintiff be granted such other and further reliefs as are just and equitable under the premises.12 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x LIFTING THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT.
x x x x
x x x RULING THAT THE [RTC] MARCH 13, 2000 ORDER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT PETITIONER HAS ANY RIGHT IN ESSE WHICH WOULD BE VIOLATED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK IF FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WERE TO PROCEED.
x x x x
x x x NOT RULING THAT THE ISSUE ON THE VALIDITY OR LEGALITY OF THE DEFAULT PROVISION ALLEGELDY PROVIDED IN THE PROMISSORY NOTES AND INVOKED [BY] THE RESPONDENT BANK IN DECLARING PETITIONER AS HAVING DEFAULTED IN ALL HIS ACCOUNTS/OBLIGATIONS CONSTITUTES AS A LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AND TO PREVENT GREAT AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE AND INJURY TO PETITIONER SHOULD THE FORECLOSURE PROCEED.21 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Exhibit "2," records, p. 61.
2 Exhibits "1"-"3," id. at 60.
3 Exhibit "3," id. at 62.
4 Exhibit "4," id. at 63.
5 Exhibit "3-c," id. at 62. Vide Exhibits "1-c" and "2-c," id. at 60-61.
6 Vide Exhibit "4-c," id. at 63.
7 TSN, May 7, 1999, p. 6.
8 Records, pp. 8-9.
9 TSN, April 6, 1999, p. 17.
10 Records, pp. 2-6.
11 Id. at 3-4.
12 Id. at 4-5.
13 Id. at 18.
14 Id. at 83-84.
15 Id. at 84.
16 Id. at 85-89.
17 Id. at 95.
18 CA rollo, pp. 2-25.
19 Decision penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Sixto C. Marella, Jr.; id. at 138-150.
20 Rollo, pp. 32-54.
21 Id. at 44-45.
22 Marquez v. Presiding Judge (Hon. Ismael B. Sanchez), RTC Br. 58, Lucena City, G.R. No. 141849, February 13, 2007, 515 SCRA 577, 588.
23 Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 161004, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 183, 189.
24 Tomawis v. Tabao-Caudang, G.R. No. 166547, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 68, 85.
25 Duvaz Corporation v. Export and Industry Bank, G.R. No. 163011, 523 SCRA 405, 415-416.
26 TSN, March 9, 1999, pp. 17-19.
27 De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 376, 382. Vide Florenz Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1, p. 8; Lazo v. Republic Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-27365, January 30, 1970, 31 SCRA 329, 334.