GR 153852; (October, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153852 ; October 24, 2012
SPOUSES HUMBERTO P. DELOSSANTOS AND CARMENCITA M. DELOS SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners obtained several loans totaling P12,000,000.00 from respondent Metrobank, secured by a real estate mortgage on their property. The promissory notes contained stipulated interest rates and an escalation clause allowing Metrobank to adjust rates based on specific economic indicators without advance notice. Upon petitioners’ alleged default, Metrobank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure. Petitioners filed a complaint with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sale, claiming they were not in default. They argued that Metrobank imposed interest rates different from an alleged agreed rate of 14.75%, increased rates without basis using the escalation clause, and that they had made excess payments which should be applied to their obligation, thereby negating any default.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted a temporary restraining order and later issued the writ of preliminary injunction. However, upon Metrobank’s motion for reconsideration, which petitioners did not oppose, the RTC reconsidered and dissolved the injunction. The RTC found the escalation clause clear and the interest adjustments pursuant thereto valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders, leading to this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of the application for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the stringent requirements for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction. Such a writ is an extraordinary remedy issued only upon a clear showing of a right in esse that is violated or threatened. The applicant must establish a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, and that the act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right. In this case, petitioners failed to prove a clear legal right to stop the foreclosure.
The Court found no merit in petitioners’ claim of excess payment, as Metrobank demonstrated that portions of the payments were applied to a separate, unsecured loan. More critically, the Court upheld the validity of the escalation clause in the promissory notes. The clause expressly permitted interest rate adjustments based on enumerated economic factors without need for prior notice or consent. Petitioners’ unilateral request for a rate reduction did not bind the bank. Consequently, Metrobank’s computation of the obligation, including the adjusted interest, was proper. Since petitioners failed to settle the validly computed debt, Metrobank’s right to foreclose the mortgage upon default accrued. Petitioners did not possess a clear right that would justify the injunctive relief. The trial court’s discretion in denying the injunction, having found no clear right, was correct and warranted no appellate interference.