GR 147443; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147443 ; February 11, 2008
LPBS COMMERCIAL, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. VENANCIO J. AMILA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Br. 3 and THE FIRST CONSOLIDATED BANK (FCB) OF BOHOL, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner LPBS Commercial, Inc. obtained loans from respondent First Consolidated Bank (FCB) secured by a real estate mortgage. In 1997, the loan was restructured into three promissory notes with increased interest rates. Petitioner later filed a complaint for reformation of documents and recovery of excessive interest payments before the RTC, alleging the bank unilaterally imposed oppressive charges. During the protracted proceedings, respondent bank filed an application for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Petitioner filed an urgent motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the foreclosure. The RTC, in an order dated January 17, 2001, denied the motion, reasoning that foreclosure was proper due to petitioner’s long default, though it limited the foreclosure to the uncontested principal and agreed interest, excluding disputed penalties pending hearing. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari assailing the RTC’s interlocutory order denying the motion for a TRO.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court emphasized that the remedy against an interlocutory order, such as one denying a TRO, is not certiorari but an appeal from a final judgment. Certiorari is allowed only in exceptional circumstances demonstrating the inadequacy of an appeal, which petitioner failed to establish. Furthermore, the Court strictly applied the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is concurrent with the RTC and the Court of Appeals, but direct recourse to the Supreme Court is not unrestrained. Litigants must respect the judicial hierarchy; petitions against RTC orders should first be filed with the Court of Appeals. Direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is permitted only for special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition, which were absent here. The policy prevents undue demands on the Court’s time and docket congestion, ensuring the Court can focus on matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and that cases are not unduly delayed.