Philippine National Bank v. Javellana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint against Jacinto P. Presbitero for the recovery of P18,240 plus interest, and secured a writ of preliminary attachment on Presbitero's property. The notice of attachment was registered, but the owner's duplicate certificate of title was not surrendered for annotation. Subsequently, Presbitero obtained a loan from Glicerio and Trinidad Villanueva, executing a mortgage on the same property. This mortgage was also registered and annotated on the title. PNB obtained a favorable judgment in its case, which became final, and an order for execution was issued. Procedural History: Respondents Glicerio Javellana and Laura V. Javellana (as judicial administratrix of Trinidad Villanueva's estate) filed a complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage and sought a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the sheriff from proceeding with the sale of the attached property. PNB objected, asserting its prior and superior right as an attaching creditor and arguing that the foreclosure court could not interfere with the execution proceedings in the attachment case. The Petition: Respondent Judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction, overruling PNB's claim of priority. PNB filed this petition for certiorari, contending that the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that interfered with the execution proceedings of a coordinate court. Whether the writ of attachment has priority over the mortgage lien.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the respondent Judge is set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of interference with coordinate courts: The Court reiterated the principle established in Cabigao and Izquierdo vs. Del Rosario that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that different branches of the Court of First Instance, while belonging to the same court, are coordinate and their orders should not be derogatory to each other to ensure harmonious court proceedings. The issuance of the injunction by a judge in one branch to stop the execution proceedings ordered by a judge in another branch, even within the same court, constitutes a grave abuse of discretion. On the priority of liens: The Court found that the lien of the petitioner (PNB) was registered almost two years prior to that of the respondents. This prior registration entitled PNB's lien to preferential consideration. The fact that the owner's duplicate certificate of title was not annotated with the attachment was deemed of no moment, as such annotation is primarily necessary for voluntary transactions, not for involuntary ones like attachment proceedings. Therefore, PNB's claim as an attaching creditor with an earlier registered lien was superior to the mortgage lien of the respondents.
Main Doctrine
A court cannot interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the relief sought. Different branches of the Court of First Instance are considered coordinate courts.