G.R. No. 164479 ; February 13, 2008
ROMBE EXIMTRADE (PHILS.), INC. and SPOUSES ROMEO PERALTA and MARRIONETTE PERALTA, petitioners, vs. ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rombe Eximtrade (Phils.), Inc. (Rombe) filed a Petition for Declaration of a State of Suspension of Payments with Approval of Proposed Rehabilitation Plan (Civil Case No. 325-M-2002) before the Malolos, Bulacan RTC, Branch 7. On May 3, 2002, the RTC issued a Stay Order suspending all claims against Rombe. However, on September 24, 2002, the same RTC dismissed the rehabilitation petition and lifted the Stay Order, finding that Rombe made numerous material misrepresentations regarding its financial status, did not submit required documents, grossly exaggerated its assets, and lacked a feasible rehabilitation plan. Rombe did not appeal this dismissal.
Subsequently, respondent Asiatrust Development Bank (Asiatrust) initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against Rombe’s properties. On December 17, 2002, Rombe filed a separate Complaint for Annulment of Documents and Damages with Prayer for a TRO and Injunction (Civil Case No. 906-M-2002) before the Malolos, Bulacan RTC, Branch 15, seeking to stop the foreclosure. Branch 15 issued an Order on January 8, 2003, granting a writ of preliminary injunction against Asiatrust.
Asiatrust filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by RTC Branch 15. The CA granted the petition, annulling the January 8, 2003 and April 3, 2003 Orders of Branch 15. The CA ruled that the injunction interfered with and set aside the earlier September 24, 2002 Order of RTC Branch 7, which had lifted the stay order and allowed foreclosure. Rombe’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the Orders of RTC Branch 15 that issued a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 906-M-2002, on the ground that it interfered with the final Order of RTC Branch 7 in the dismissed rehabilitation case (Civil Case No. 325-M-2002).

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and REVERSED the CA Decision.
The Court held that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by RTC Branch 15 did not constitute interference with the Order of RTC Branch 7. The rehabilitation case (Civil Case No. 325-M-2002) had already been dismissed with finality by Branch 7 on September 24, 2002, due to Rombe’s misrepresentations and insolvency. After this dismissal, there was no pending rehabilitation case or operative stay order. Consequently, the separate action for annulment of documents and injunction filed before Branch 15 (Civil Case No. 906-M-2002) involved a distinct cause of action—the validity of the foreclosure documents—and was not barred by the prior proceedings. The RTC Branch 15 did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunction to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the annulment case.
The Court also addressed a procedural issue, finding that the verification and certification against forum shopping signed by Asiatrust’s Manager and Head of the Acquired Assets Unit substantially complied with the rules, as he had sufficient knowledge of the facts, notwithstanding the absence of a board resolution. The case cited by Rombe, Premium Marble Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, was deemed inapplicable.
The Supreme Court ordered RTC Branch 15 to proceed with dispatch in Civil Case No. 906-M-2002.