0,n

, ·~ ~r,,;·-~i:- r/.\'E':,~~~PINES
SUPR!!)\f.@14'r,?:; . . -11
~ ~ 2~~~19, .
fib

JJ
!\epttbhc: of tbe l'btlipptnes av~'-~----_··
TIME~

~upreme Qtourt
.:fflnniln

SECOND DIVISION

PRIME SAVINGS BANK, G.R. No. 208283

REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR, Present:
THE PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION, CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
Petitioner, PERLAS-BERNABE,
CAGUIOA,
J. REYES, JR., and
- versus -
LAZARO-JAVIER, JJ

SPOUsrs ROBERTO AND HEIDI Promulgated:

L. SANTOS,
Respondents. 1 9 JtJN 2019
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RESOLUTION

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (Petition)

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Prime Savings Bank
(Prime Savings Bank), represented by its Statutory Liquidator, the Philippine
Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), against respondents Spouses
Roberto and Heidi L. Santos (Sps. Santos), assailing the Resolution 2 dated
February 16, 2012 (first assailed Resolution) and Resolution 3 dated July 2,
2013 (second assailed Resolution) (collectively, the assailed Resolutions)
rendered by the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City (CA) in CA-G.R.
SP No. 03348-MIN.

The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

As culled from the records of the instant case, the essential facts and
antecedent proceedings of the case are as follows:

' Rollo, pp. 16-33.

2
Jd. at 38-39. Permed by Associate Justice Fdgardo 1\. Camello wilh A~sociate Justices Carmelita
Salandanan Manahan and Pedro B. Coraie~·. concurring.
:i Id. at 35-26. Penned by Associate Ju~tice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Jhosep Y.
Lopez and Henri .lean Paul B. lnting (now a mern(ier of this Court), concurring.
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 208483

On January 20, 1999, the Sps. Santos filed a Complaint for Rescission
of Sale and Real Estate Mortgage with Prayer for Injunction (Complaint)
with the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 36 (RTC)
against one Engr. Edgardo Torcende (Torcende) and Prime Savings Bank.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6492.

On January 7, 2000, or during the pendency of Civil Case No. 6492,

the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued
Resolution No. 22 4 which prohibited Prime Savings Bank from doing
business and placed it under receivership, with PDIC as the designated
receiver. On April 27, 2000, and by virtue of Resolution No. 664, 5 the
Monetary Board placed Prime Savings Bank under liquidation with PDIC as
the designated Liquidator.

On July 19, 2000, pursuant to Section 30 of Republic Act No. (RA)

7653, also known as the New Central Bank Act, PDIC filed a Petition for
Assistance in the Liquidation (PAL) of Prime Savings Bank, Inc. The case
was docketed as Special Proceeding Case No. 11097 before the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig City (Liquidation Court).

Meanwhile, on September 1, 2006, in Civil Case No. 6492, the RTC

rendered a Decision in favor of the Sps. Santos and against Engr. Torcende
and Prime Savings Bank. On March 21, 2007, Prime Savings Bank received
a Notice of Garnishment6 dated March 7, 2007. Attached to the Notice of
Garnishment were the Entry of Final Judgment 7 dated February 13, 2007
and Writ of Execution 8 dated February 14, 2007.

Prime Savings Bank filed with the RTC a Motion to Litt (re: February
14, 2007 Writ of Execution and March 7, 2007 Notice of Garnishment)9
with additional prayer that the Sps. Santos be directed to file a judgment
claim in the Liquidation Court.

On August 16, 2007, finding merit in the position of Prime Savings

Bank, the RTC issued an Order 10 lifting the Writ of Execution and Notice of
Garnishment. The RTC cited Section 30 of RA 7653, which states that the
assets of an institution under receivership or liquidation shall be deemed in
custodia legis in the hands of the receiver and shall be exempt from any
order of garnishment, levy, attachment, or execution. 11 The RTC further
explained that the stay of the execution of the judgment is warranted due to
the fact that Prime Savings Bank vvas placed under receivership. To execute

4
Id. at 53.
5
Id. at 54.
6
Id. at 56.
7
Id. at 57-58.
lei. at 59-61 .
9
Id.at62-74.
10
Id. at 77-80. Penned by Judge Isaac Alvero V. Moran.
11
Id. at 78.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 208283

the judgment would unduly deplete the assets of Prime Savings Bank to the
prejudice of the other depositors and credits. 12

The Sps. Santos filed a Motion for Reconsideration 13 dated August 30,
2007 assailing the aforesaid Order of the RTC.

In its Order 14 dated September 29, 2009, the RTC reversed itself and
granted the Motion for Reconsideration. The R TC ordered the enforcement
of the Writ of Execution and Notice of Garnishment against Prime Savings
Bank. Hence, on November 3, 2009, Prime Savings Bank received another
Notice of Garnishment 15 dated October 26, 2009 from the Sheriff of the
RTC, Alfredo T. Pallanan.

Hence, on December 19, 2009, Prime Savings Bank filed a Petition

for Certiorari under Rule 65 with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI)
(Certiorari Petition) before the CA. The matter was docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 03348-MIN.

The, Certiorari Petition sought the reversal of the RTC's Order

allowing the execution and garnishment of Prime Savings Bank's assets, and
that the RTC be enjoined from further acting on the Notices of Garnishment
dated March 7, 2007 and October 26, 2009, in implementation of the Writ of
Execution dated February 14, 2007.

The Ruling of the CA on the

Application for the Issuance of a TRO/WPI

On February 16, 2012, the CA issued the first assailed Resolution

denying Prime Savings Bank's application for TRO and/or WPI. The first
assailed Resolution reads:

Acting on the petitioner's application for the issuance of a

temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ or (sic) preliminary
injunction (WPI), and the Comment filed by respondents. the Com1
resolves to DENY the petitioner's application for the issuance of a TRO
and/or a WPI for failure to demonstrate sufficiently that a clear legal
right or an urgent necessity exists to justify the issuance of an injunctive
relief.

SO ORDERED. 16

12
Id. at 79.
13
Id. at 81-86.
14
Id. at 89-90.
15
Id. at 91.
16
Id. at 38-39.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 208283

Prime Savings Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration 17 dated March

9, 2012, which was denied by the CA in its second assailed Resolution.

Hence, the instant Petition filed by Prime Savings Bank on September

11, 2013.

On August 1, 2014, the Sps. Santos filed their Comment, 18 while

Prime Savings Bank filed its Reply 19 on July 13, 2015.

Issue

The sole issue for the Cow1's consideration is whether the CA was
correct in denying Prime Savings Bank's application for TRO and/or WPI,
which was ancillary to its Certiorari Petition.

The Court's Ruling

The instant Petition is denied.

First and foremost, the instant Petition, filed under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, merits outright dismissal for having utilized the wrong
remedy.

It is beyond argument that the assailed Resolution_s rendered by the

CA being questioned before the Court are mere interlocutory orders, dealing
with Prime Savings Bank's application for the issuance of a TRO and/or
WPI, which is a mere ancillary prayer attached to the main case of the
Certiorari Petition, which seeks the reversal of the RTC's Order allowing
the execution and garnishment of Prime Savings Bank's assets.

It is a hornbook principle that Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governs

appeals from judgments or final orders, not interlocutory orders. 20 An
interlocutory order cannot be the subject of appeal until final judgment is
rendered for one party or the other.2 1 Further, the Court has previously
distinguished certiorari, as a mode of appeal under Rule 45, as a remedy that
involves the review of the judgment, award, or final order on the merits, as
compared to the original action for certiorari under Rule 65, which refers to
a remedy that may be directed against an interlocutory order. No appeal may
be taken from an interlocutory order. Instead, the proper remedy to assail
such an order is to file a petition for certiorari under Ruic 65 .22

17
Id. at 40-52.
18
Id. at 141-147.
19
id.atl62-173.
2
° Calleja v. Panday, S l 8 Phil. 80 l, 808 (2006 ).
21 Villasin v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of'thc Philippi11e.1, I07 Phil. 80 I. 803 ( 1960)
22
Spouses Perez v. Tan, G.R. No. 186617, April 23, 2014. p. 4 ( Unsigned Resolution).
Resolution 5 G.1. No. 208283
:1
!!1
:11

t
Hence, Prime Savings Bank erred in resorting to this Rule 15 Petition
in seeking ,the reversal of the CA's assailed Resolutions, which!:: are mere
interlocutory orders denying Prime Savings Bank's ancillary appf(cation for
TRO and/or WPI. ::; 1

1I
In any case, even if the Court exercises liberality and treats :the instant
Petition as a Rule 65 Petition, the instant Petition still meritr outright
dismissal for having been rendered moot and academic. i:
II
As borne by the records of the Court, the Certiorari Petit~bn, which
was previously pending before the CA at the time of the filing offhe instant
Petition, was eventually decided by the CA in favor of Primi Savings
Bank in its Decision dated July 29, 2015 and Resolution dateq June 21,
2016. The Sps. Santos appealed the CA's unfavorable Decision id CA-G.R.
SP No. 03348-MIN before the First Division of the Court. The a~peal was
docketed as G.R. No. 226193, entitled Spouses Roberto and Heid~: L. Santos
v. Prime Savings Bank (PSB) represented by its Statutory Liqui&ator, The
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). In its Resolud~n 23 dated
October 12, 2016, the Court, First Division denied the Petition rtr Review
on Certiorari filed by the Sps. Santos. In its subsequent ResoIJlion dated 11

July 31, 2017, the Court, First Division denied the Sps. Santos' _l\{1otion for
. il1

Reconsideration with finality. I

!II
111

Therefore, with the Certiorari Petition having been de~ided with

finality, the instant Petition has been rendered moot and academic.:!:

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DISMISSED. :[:

:1i:

"
SO ORDERED. !.1

(
I'
,1
·1·.'

![I
i
:,1;

IN s. clcu10A ',1:1

'l1
il
1

WE CONCUR:
f
,;t;
',(;\

I'\
,I:,

CN:J~
'I•:II
i,
,,I,

:1':
ANTONIO T. CARPIO '1

::1·
Associate Justice l'
,i,I,

Chairperson
:11

:;!!
Ii,,
!1(

I;
11

iiI
23 '1
Issued by the Division Clerk of Court.
,11

:I:,:1
,,:1
1·,1

,1

111
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 2082~3

!,_fee~
ESTELA M.~R~ERNABE C. R~ES, .JR.
Associate Justice ociate Justice
~

AMY C. jt!t;:
Associate Justice
VIER

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Di vision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.