GR 190134; (July, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 190134 , July 8, 2015
SPOUSES ROGELIO and SHIRLEY T. LIM, Agusan Institute of Technology, represented by DR. SHIRLEY T. LIM, President and as Attorney-in-Fact of FELIX A. CUENCA, MARY ANN M. MALOLOT, and REY ADONIS M. MEJORADA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MINDANAO STATION; SHERIFF ARCHIBALD C. VERGA, and his DEPUTIES, Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Hall of Justice, Libertad, Butuan City; and FIRST CONSOLIDATED BANK, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners executed several real estate and chattel mortgages in favor of respondent First Consolidated Bank for various loans between 1996 and 2000. The bank admitted petitioners paid most loans but defaulted on three specific loans (the 7th, 8th, and 11th). The bank applied for extrajudicial foreclosure on December 28, 2000. Petitioners filed an action for revocation and annulment of the mortgages with a plea for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction in the RTC, alleging the contracts could not be foreclosed as their total payments constituted overpayments, attributing the balance to exorbitant interests and penalties. The RTC initially issued a writ of preliminary injunction. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision on December 28, 2007, lifting the injunction, dismissing the complaint, and ordering petitioners to pay the outstanding balances of the three unpaid loans with attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary damages. Petitioners appealed to the CA and applied for a TRO/preliminary injunction. The CA denied the application via Resolutions dated July 2, 2009, and September 30, 2009, prompting the present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the applicant must show a clear and unmistakable right, a material and substantial invasion of that right, and an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. Petitioners failed to establish a clear legal right, as they only claimed overpayments due to alleged astronomical interests without presenting documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, the act sought to be enjoined—the extrajudicial foreclosure—had already become a fait accompli. A Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was executed on July 31, 2009, after petitioners failed to redeem the properties. Since the foreclosure had already been consummated, there was nothing left to restrain. The petition was denied, and the CA Resolutions were affirmed.