GR L 23032; (September, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23032 September 30, 1969
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. LEOPOLDO C. PALAD, Ex-officio Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, PAG-ASA LABOR UNION (PLU), THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed an urgent petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to forestall the public auction sale of several personal properties. These properties had been levied upon by the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Leopoldo C. Palad, pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, Hon. Jose S. Bautista. The writ was to satisfy a judgment in Case No. 1544-ULP (Pag-asa Labor Union v. Roxas-Kalaw Textile Mills, Inc., et al.). PNB alleged that the levied properties were covered by its duly registered mortgage. Consequently, PNB filed a third-party claim with the Sheriff, who then filed a motion with the Judge to fix a bond under Section 17, Rule 39. Despite this, the Judge directed the Sheriff to proceed with the sale, effectively denying the motion and dismissing the third-party claim. PNB moved for reconsideration, but the Sheriff scheduled the sale before any resolution on the motion. The Supreme Court issued the preliminary injunction upon a P10,000 cash bond. Later, PNB moved to withdraw its petition and the bond, stating that: (1) the petition’s purpose was already accomplished; (2) the labor union’s claim against Roxas-Kalaw Textile Mills had been settled via a compromise agreement approved by the Court of Industrial Relations; and (3) PNB had already acquired the levied properties through extrajudicial foreclosure. The respondent Pag-asa Labor Union assented to the withdrawal and manifested that the case had been amicably settled to its satisfaction.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction should be dismissed in light of the subsequent settlement and acquisition of the properties by the petitioner.
RULING
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court, having previously allowed the withdrawal of the P10,000 cash bond by resolution dated February 9, 1965, and considering the grounds for withdrawal stated by the petitioner to which the respondent union assented, dismisses the petition without pronouncement as to costs. The settlement of the underlying labor case and the petitioner’s acquisition of the properties through foreclosure rendered the petition moot.