Prime Savings Bank v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Spouses Roberto and Heidi L. Santos filed a Complaint for Rescission of Sale and Real Estate Mortgage with Prayer for Injunction against Engr. Edgardo Torcende and Prime Savings Bank. Subsequently, Prime Savings Bank was placed under receivership and then liquidation by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, with the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) designated as receiver and later liquidator. Procedural History: Following a decision in favor of the Spouses Santos in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a Notice of Garnishment was issued against Prime Savings Bank. The RTC initially lifted the garnishment, citing the bank's liquidation status and the exemption of assets under custodia legis. However, the RTC later reversed its decision, ordering the enforcement of the garnishment. Prime Savings Bank then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the RTC's order. The Petition: Prime Savings Bank, represented by PDIC, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions that denied its application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI). The petition argued that the CA erred in denying the injunctive relief, which was ancillary to its Certiorari Petition seeking to reverse the RTC's order allowing the garnishment of the bank's assets.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in denying Prime Savings Bank's application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI). Whether the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail interlocutory orders of the CA; and whether the case has been rendered moot.
Ruling
The Petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the wrong remedy to assail interlocutory orders, such as the CA's denial of a TRO and/or WPI application. The proper remedy is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Even if treated as a Rule 65 Petition, the case is rendered moot and academic because the main Certiorari Petition before the CA was eventually decided in favor of Prime Savings Bank, and subsequent appeals by the Sps. Santos were denied with finality.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the TRO/WPI application: The records show that the main Certiorari Petition, which was pending before the CA at the time of the filing of the instant Petition, was eventually decided by the CA in favor of Prime Savings Bank. The Sps. Santos appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, but their Petition for Review on Certiorari was denied, and their subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied with finality. On the propriety of the remedy and mootness: The Court held that the instant Petition, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, merits outright dismissal because it was used to assail interlocutory orders. The assailed Resolutions of the CA dealt with Prime Savings Bank's application for a TRO and/or WPI, which is an ancillary prayer to the main Certiorari Petition seeking to reverse the RTC's Order allowing execution and garnishment. Rule 45 governs appeals from judgments or final orders, not interlocutory orders. An interlocutory order cannot be appealed until a final judgment is rendered. The proper remedy to assail an interlocutory order is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Therefore, Prime Savings Bank erred in resorting to a Rule 45 Petition. Furthermore, with the main Certiorari Petition having been decided with finality, the instant Petition has become moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the improper remedy to assail interlocutory orders, such as the denial of an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI). The proper remedy for such orders is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Furthermore, a case may be rendered moot and academic if the main issue has already been resolved with finality.