Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BPI vs. PUNO

    Uploaded by

    Marianne Andres
    127 views1 page
    The Bank of the Philippine Islands granted loans to Noah's Arc Merchandising that were evidenced by promissory notes signed by Albert Looyuko, Jimmy Go, and Wilson Go. Noah's Arc defaulted and the bank sought to extrajudicially foreclose on the mortgaged property. Jimmy Go filed a complaint to enjoin the auction sale, and was granted a temporary restraining order. The bank argued the TRO and preliminary injunction were improper. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bank, finding that Jimmy Go was not entitled to the injunction as the foreclosure did not violate his rights, and the TRO was issued irregularly under the rules of civil procedure.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Bank of the Philippine Islands granted loans to Noah's Arc Merchandising that were evidenced by promissory notes signed by Albert Looyuko, Jimmy Go, and Wilson Go. Noah's Arc defaulted and the bank sought to extrajudicially foreclose on the mortgaged property. Jimmy Go filed a complaint to enjoin the auction sale, and was granted a temporary restraining order. The bank argued the TRO and preliminary injunction were improper. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bank, finding that Jimmy Go was not entitled to the injunction as the foreclosure did not violate his rights, and the TRO was issued irregularly under the rules of civil procedure.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    127 views1 page

    BPI vs. PUNO

    Uploaded by

    Marianne Andres
    The Bank of the Philippine Islands granted loans to Noah's Arc Merchandising that were evidenced by promissory notes signed by Albert Looyuko, Jimmy Go, and Wilson Go. Noah's Arc defaulted and the bank sought to extrajudicially foreclose on the mortgaged property. Jimmy Go filed a complaint to enjoin the auction sale, and was granted a temporary restraining order. The bank argued the TRO and preliminary injunction were improper. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bank, finding that Jimmy Go was not entitled to the injunction as the foreclosure did not violate his rights, and the TRO was issued irregularly under the rules of civil procedure.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    142731 : June 8, 2006 BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (formerly FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY), Petitioner vs. PUNO, J., Chairperso, SANDOVAL-GUITIERREZ, CORONA, COURT OF APPEALS and AZCUNA, and JIMMY T. GO, and GARCIA, JJ, Respondents.

    FACTS: Petitioner, Far East Bank and Trust Company, granted a total of 8 loans to Noahs Arc Merchandising (Noahs Ark, for brevity). Per Certificate of Registration issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, Noahs Ark is a single proprietorship owned by Mr. Albert T. Looyuko. The said loans were evidenced by identical Promissory Notes all signed by Albert T. Looyuko, private respondent Jimmy T. Go and one Wilson Go. Likewise, all parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 160277 registered in the names of Mr. Looyuko and herein private respondent. Petitioner, claiming that Noahs Ark defaulted in its obligations, extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. The auction sale was set on April 14, 1998 but on April 1998, private respondent filed a complaint for damages with prayer for issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the auction sale. In the Order dated April 14, 1998 a TRO was issued and in the same order the application for Preliminary Injunction was set for hearing. April 15, 1998 Judge Victorio extended the TRO for another 15 days, for a total of 20 days. Private respondent then filed a bond as required by the order. Petitioner filed a MR which was denied in the Order dated July 30, 1998. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA promulgated its decision dated August 26, 1999 which partially denied the petition for certiorari. ISSUES: (1) WON the private respondent was entitled to the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction. (2) WON the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction were properly issued by Judge Victorio. RULING: (1) No. The Court finds that private respondent was not entitled to the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction. Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides the grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Private respondent is not entitled to the relief of injunction against the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale. Neither are the exrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale violative of private respondents rights. (2) No. The Court finds that the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction were improperly issued by Judge Victorio. First of all, on substantive grounds, as discussed above, private respondent was not entitled to the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction. Second, the issuance of the TRO was, on procedural grounds, irregular. Pursuant to Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

    You might also like