THIRD DIVISION
|
GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, - versus - TERESITA REYES, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 140940 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Gotesco
Properties Inc. (Gotesco), a domestic corporation engaged in, among other
things, the development of subdivisions and other real estate projects, filed before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna a
complaint[1]
against Isabel Carpio (Isabel), Dionisio
E. Carpio, Jr., Mary Rose E. Carpio
and Edwin Jesus Carpio (the Carpios),
for specific performance with damages with prayer for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 2257-95-C,
was raffled to Branch 92, of the RTC of Calamba.
In its complaint, Gotesco
alleged that the Carpios, by a contract to sell, agreed
to sell to it certain parcels of land (the property) located in Calamba on account of which it, through its agent, Peter Sy (Sy), issued Metrobank Check No. 015850 (the check) for the account of
Isabel in the amount of P24,316,320 representing 40% of the total
purchase price of P60,790,000.[2] The Carpios, Gotesco further alleged,
failed, however, to comply with their obligation under the contract to free the
property from tenants and present proof of payment of property disturbance
compensation.[3]
Gotesco later amended its complaint[4] impleading herein respondent, Teresita
Reyes (Teresita), and the United Coconut Planters
Bank (UCPB) as defendants, alleging that the Carpios
had deposited the check “in their account with [UCPB] on March 22, 1995 under
Account No. 225-109199-9” but “part or all of [the proceeds thereof] could have
been possibly deposited to the account of [Teresita]
with [UCPB].”[5] Gotesco reiterated
its prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, and of a writ of
preliminary injunction after hearing, to restrain the Carpios
and Teresita, their agents or assigns from
withdrawing the deposit and alienating the property and prohibit UCPB from
allowing any withdrawal of the deposit.[6]
To the amended complaint, Teresita filed a motion to dismiss,[7]
alleging that she was not a party to the contract to sell,[8]
hence, not a party-in-interest.
Gotesco and the Carpios
later filed a joint Motion to Approve Compromise Agreement[9] wherein
the Carpios declared that they had “no interest in
any capacity whatsoever over Account No. 225-109199-99 [sic] or in any account with UCPB where the amount of P24,316,320
. . . was deposited” and neither did they have “any interest or participation
in the contract to sell.”[10] In the same motion, the said parties manifested
that they agreed to the dismissal of the case.[11]
The prayer for the issuance of
preliminary injunction was, in the meantime, heard.
As it appeared that the amount of P24,310,000
was withdrawn from UCPB Account No. 225-109199-9 and transferred to Account No.
225-108524-0 in the name of Teresita, the
trial court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction[12]
enjoining UCPB from allowing any withdrawal from the latter account.
Gotesco later filed a Motion to Admit Second
Amended Complaint,[13] alleging
that Teresita had represented herself as the broker
of the Carpios and introduced, in the course of the
negotiations leading to the execution of the contract to sell, one whom she
represented to be Isabel.[14] It
further alleged that the check it issued was deposited in UCPB Account No.
225-109199-9 in the name of “Isabel Carpio,” following
which the amount of P24,310,000 was withdrawn therefrom
and deposited in Teresita’s UCPB Account Number [225-]108524-0.[15]
Gotesco thus prayed for the rescission of
the contract to sell, the return to it of the amount of P24,310,000
deposited in Teresita’s Account Number 225-108524-0 plus
interest earned, and the payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages and
attorney’s fees.[16]
By Order[17]
of
By Order[22]
of September 2, 1996, the trial court dismissed the complaint against the Carpios; denied Teresita’s Motion
for Reconsideration of its April 29, 1996 Order denying her motion to
dismiss; and lifted the preliminary
injunction it earlier issued against UCPB, ordering it instead to release to Gotesco the amount of P24,316,320 [sic] which was transferred to Teresita’s account, subject to Gotesco’s
posting of a bond in the amount of P24,316,320 [sic] in favor of defendant UCPB.[23]
Teresita assailed
the trial court’s Order of P24,310,000 deposited in her account, thereby
violating her rights as a depositor.[25]
The appellate court, by Decision[26] of
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered,
We vote to grant the writ of certiorari and pro tanto
modify the questioned Order of
x x x x[27] (Underscoring supplied)
Gotesco’s motion for reconsideration[28]
of the appellate court’s decision having been denied,[29] it
filed the present petition for review on certiorari,[30] faulting
the appellate court for not sustaining the trial court’s order lifting the writ
of preliminary injunction and ordering the release of the proceeds of the
check.
Gotesco (hereafter petitioner) contends that
as the real Isabel-intended payee of the check interposed no objection to the
release of its proceeds, part of which (P24,310,000) was transferred to the
account of Teresita (hereafter respondent) with UCPB,
the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court’s Order of September 2,
1996.
The petition fails.
That the
intended payee Isabel interposed no objection to the release of the proceeds of
the check is immaterial, she not being “the depositor.” As observed by the appellate court:
x x x Granting that [Teresita’s] claims of ownership, as set out in her several pleadings, are nebulous, the fact remains that the said amount is deposited in her account, and that she has, at the very least, color of title over the same, which ought not to be disturbed until after a full-blown trial, and not a summary one . . .[31] (Underscoring supplied)
Petitioner in fact concedes that it
is still necessary for respondent to prove during the trial her right to the
proceeds of the check.[32]
To order then the release of P24,310,000
from the account of respondent, who claims that the said amount was paid to her
by the Carpios in settlement of an obligation, pending
the determination of who is rightfully entitled thereto is premature. Again, as the appellate court observed:
x x x As correctly asserted by petitioner, the very gravamen of the litigation before the respondent court is the ownership of the said amount, with respondent Gotesco claiming that the sum of money belongs to it, and petitioner maintaining otherwise, saying that it was paid out to her by the Carpios due to some obligation in her favor. x x x It would not do for Gotesco to argue that the rights of petitioner are safeguarded by the posting of a corporate bond to answer for whatever awards and damages may be granted [her] if, after trial, it should be found that she is entitled to the money. For there is a lot to the saying that there is nothing like cold cash. The bonding firm may, during the pendency of the trial, become bankrupt and close shop, while cash in the bank is guaranteed by the bank concerned and, to a certain extent by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation. . . . The better course of action for the trial court to have undertaken was to have maintained the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioner from touching the money in any manner, yet at the same time keeping it away from the other party, by keeping the same in the bank in custodia legis to await the outcome of the litigation.[33] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioner posits,
however, that the evidence it presented during the hearing of the prayer for the
issuance of preliminary injunction showing that it is the owner of the money deposited
in the account of Teresita was not rebutted by her.[34]
The trial court issued
the writ of preliminary injunction, which is interlocutory, to preserve the threatened
or continuous irremediable injury to petitioner before its claims could be
thoroughly studied and adjudicated.[35] It was issued to maintain the status quo
and can not, therefore, be used to transfer the possession or control of the
thing to a party who did not have such possession or control at the inception
of the case.[36]
Pending then the final determination by the trial court of
who has a better right to the deposit, the trial court’s order lifting the preliminary
injunction it had earlier issued and ordering the release of the deposit in respondent’s
account to petitioner was correctly found by the appellate court to have been
attended with grave abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Records, pp. 1-12.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Ibid.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] CA rollo,
pp. 1-21.
[25] Id.
at 13-16.
[26]
[27] Id.
at 161.
[28]
[29] Id.
at 186-188.
[30] Rollo, pp. 9-34.
[31] CA
rollo, pp. 159.
[32] Rollo, p. 21.
[33] CA
rollo, pp. 159.
[34] Rollo,
p. 207.
[35] Los Baños Rural
Bank, Inc. v.
[36] Central
Bank v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 59957, November 12, 1990, 191 SCRA 346, 355.