BPI v. Eduardo Hong - Digest

On September 16, 1997, the EYCO Group of Companies (EYCO) filed a petition
for suspension of payments and rehabilitation before the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). – disapproved by SEC On September 14, 1999,
Sometime in November 2000 while the case was still pending with the CA,
Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), filed with, Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela City, a petition for extra-judicial foreclosure of real properties
mortgaged to it by Eyco Properties, Inc.
Claiming that the foreclosure proceedings initiated by BPI was illegal, Eduardo
Hong, an unsecured creditor of Nikon Industrial Corporation, one of the
companies of EYCO, filed an action for injunction and damages against the
BPI. He alleged that: The SEC retains jurisdiction over the mortgaged properties of
EYCO. To allow the ex-officio sheriff (Edgardo Tarriela) to take possession of the
mortgaged properties and sell the same in a foreclosure sale would be in derogation of said
jurisdiction.
After hearing, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO). Petitioner
filed a motion to dismiss[10] arguing that by plaintiffs own allegations in the
complaint, jurisdiction over the reliefs prayed for belongs to the SEC, and that
plaintiff is actually resorting to forum shopping since he has filed a claim with the
SEC and the designated Liquidator in the ongoing liquidation of the EYCO Group
of Companies. In his Opposition,[11] plaintiff (respondent) asserted that the RTC has
jurisdiction on the issue of propriety and validity of the foreclosure by petitioner, in
accordance with Section 1, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
the suit being in the nature of a real action.
ISSUE: whether the RTC can take cognizance of the injunction suit despite the
pendency of SEC Case
SC: Perusal of the complaint reveals that HONG does not ask the trial court to
rule on its interest latter’s properties mortgaged to BPI. The complaint
principally seeks to enjoin the foreclosure proceedings initiated by BPI over
those properties on the ground that such properties are held in trust and placed
under the jurisdiction of the appointed Liquidator in SEC Case. Thus, Civil
Case is one for injunction with prayer for damages.
As a rule, actions for injunction and damages lie within the jurisdiction of the
RTC pursuant to Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as
the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 7691.
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigations is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
xxxx
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising x x x judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
xxxx
On the other hand, Sec. 6 (a) of P.D. No. 902-A empowered the SEC to issue
preliminary or permanent injunctions, whether prohibitory or mandatory, in all
cases in which it has jurisdiction.
However, R.A. No. 8799, which took effect on August 8, 2000, transferred to the
appropriate regional trial courts the SECs jurisdiction over those cases enumerated
in Sec. 5 of P.D. No. 902-A. Section 5.2 of R.A. No. 8799 provides:
SEC. 5.2 The Commissions jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under
Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of
general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the
Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial
Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases. The Commission
shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes
submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from
the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over
pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000
until finally disposed. (Emphasis supplied.)
However in this case, SEC Case was no longer pending. The SEC finally disposed
of said case when it rendered on September 14, 1999 the decision disapproving the
petition filed before it by EYCO.
There is no showing in the records that SEC Case No. 09-97-5764 had been
transferred to the appropriate RTC. Pursuant to its original jurisdiction over suits for
injunction and damages, the RTC of properly took cognizance of the injunction case
filed by the HONG. No reversible error was therefore committed by the CA when it
ruled that the RTC had jurisdiction to hear and decide HONGS complaint for
injunction and damages.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED

BPI v. Eduardo Hong - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPI v. Eduardo Hong - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPI v. Eduardo Hong - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On September 16, 1997, the EYCO Group of Companies (EYCO) filed a petition

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED

You might also like