1. TML GASKET INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. [G.R. No. 188768, Jan a!

" #7, $#1%& PERE', J.( FACTS( TML obtained a loan from the Bank of Southeast Asia, Inc. (BSA), which TML can avail via a credit facilit of !"#M. As securit for the loan, TML e$ecuted a real estate mort%a%e over commercial and industrial lots &!ara'a(ue )it . BSA re(uired TML to e$ecute a *romissor note for each availment from the credit facilit . +rom Se*tember ,--. to /, 0ul ,--1, TML e$ecuted several *romissor notes (!2). 3urin% the *eriod of the loan, BSA chan%ed its cor*orate name & mer%ed with B!I. TML defaulted in the *a ment of its loan so B!I e$tra&4udiciall foreclosed the mort%a%ed *ro*erties. TML5s indebtedness to B!I ballooned. The Sheriff of 6T) issued a 2otice of 7$tra&4udicial +oreclosure Sale. TML filed a 8)om*laint for 3eclarator 6elief, !lus 3ama%es, with !ra er for the Issuance of (T69) and:or ;rit of !reliminar In4unction8 a%ainst B!I. <l, TML asseverated that BSA made it understand that the sti*ulation meant that TML5s loan would be sub4ect to onl a ,.= interest rate per annum. >owever, contrar to their actual understandin%, BSA im*osed a //= interest rate per annum, and a *enalt of /.= interest. TML likewise *ointed out that it had demanded an inde*endent accountin% and li(uidation of its loan account, which went unheeded. It cannot be considered in default of an obli%ation with an undetermined and unascertained amount. In that re%ard, TML ar%ued that the intended foreclosure of TML5s mort%a%ed *ro*erties is unwarranted for bein% ille%al? thus, the foreclosure ou%ht to be en4oined to *revent TML from sufferin% %rave and irre*arable dama%e, es*eciall since TML5s office and factor are located at the mort%a%ed *ro*erties. B!I maintained that the interest rates on TML5s loan obli%ation were mutuall and voluntaril a%reed u*on. 9n TML5s a**lication for the issuance of a writ of *reliminar in4unction, B!I countered that it has the absolute ri%ht to foreclose the mort%a%e constituted over TML5s *ro*erties %iven that TML defaulted on its loan obli%ation, which had alread become due and demandable. The trial court denied TML5s a**lication for the issuance of a *reliminar in4unction as the testimon of @TMLA casts @doubtA on its ri%ht over the *ro*ert . +urthermore, @TMLA has in its favor the ri%ht of redem*tion.#B9n M:6, the trial court ordered the issuance of the writ in favor of TML, sub4ect to the *ostin% of a bond in the amount of !/CC,CCC.CC. B!I filed a *etition for certiorari under 6ule .# before )A seekin% to annul and set aside the twin 9rders of the trial court. The a**ellate court found %rave abuse of discretion in the trial court5s issuance of the orders. TML filed a M:6 which was denied b )A. >ence, this *etition for review on certiorari

ISSUE( ;:2 the issuance of the writ of *reliminar in4unction is *ro*erD N) *ELD( ;e subscribe to the a**ellate court5s rulin%. +1, Section /, 6ule #" of the 6ules of )ourt lists the %rounds for the issuance of a writ of *reliminar in4unction. $ $ $ As such, a writ of *reliminar in4unction ma be issued onl u*on clear showin% of an actual e$istin% ri%ht to be *rotected durin% the *endenc of the *rinci*al action. The re(uisites of a valid in4unction are the e$istence of a ri%ht and its actual or threatened violations. Thus, to be entitled to an in4unctive writ, the ri%ht to be *rotected and the violation a%ainst that ri%ht must be shown.,CBErF <l, V-!./", [TML01& 2a./ !- 3o 4o56/" 7.38 38- 3-!51 an9 4on9.3.on1 o2 .31 4!-9.3 a:!--5-n3 7.38 [BPI&, a1 -5;o9.-9 .n 38- [!-a/ -13a3- 5o!3:a:-& an9 38- 6!o5.11o!" no3-1 .3 .11 -9 .n 2a<o! o2 38- /a33-!, -n3.3/-1 [BPI& 3o -=3!a> 9.4.a//" 2o!-4/o1- 385o!3:a:-9 6!o6-!3.-1.rF<l, The issuance of a *reliminar in4unction rests entirel within the discretion of the court takin% co%niGance of the case and is %enerall not interfered with e$ce*t in cases of manifest abuse. +or the issuance of the writ of *reliminar in4unction to be *ro*er, it must be shown that the invasion of the ri%ht sou%ht to be *rotected is material and substantial, that the ri%ht of com*lainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an ur%ent and *aramount necessit for the writ to *revent serious dama%e. ,HBEIn the absence of a clear le%al ri%ht, the issuance of a writ of in4unction constitutes %rave abuse of discretion. In Selegna Management and Development Corporation v. United Coconut Planters Bank,,/ we ruled that the debt is considered li(uidated des*ite the alle%ed lack of accountin%I A debt is li(uidated when the amount is known or is determinable b ins*ection of the terms and conditions of the relevant *romissor notes and related documentation. +ailure to furnish a debtor a detailed statement of account does not i*so facto result in an unli(uidated obli%ation. !etitioners e$ecuted a !romissor 2ote, in which the stated that their *rinci*al obli%ation was in the amount of !,C/,-C-,1,C."H, sub4ect to an interest rate of H,.1# *ercent *er annum. !ursuant to the *arties5 )redit A%reement, *etitioners likewise know that an dela in the *a ment of the *rinci*al obli%ation will sub4ect them to a *enalt char%e of one *ercent *er month, com*uted from the due date until the obli%ation is *aid in full. It is in fact clear from the a%reement of the *arties that when the *a ment is accelerated due to an event of default, the *enalt char%e shall be based on the total *rinci*al amount outstandin%, to be com*uted from the date of acceleration until the obli%ation is *aid in full. Their )redit A%reement even *rovides for the a**lication of *a ments. It a**ears from the a%reements that the amount of total obli%ation is known or, at the ver least, determinable. Moreover, when the made their *artial *a ment, *etitioners did not (uestion the *rinci*al, interest or *enalties demanded from them. The onl sou%ht additional time to u*date their interest *a ments or to ne%otiate a *ossible restructurin% of their account. >ence, there is no basis for their alle%ation that a statement of account was necessar for them to know their obli%ation. ;e cannot im*air res*ondent5s ri%ht to foreclose the *ro*erties on the basis of their unsubstantiated alle%ation of a violation of due *rocess.,JBErF<l, )learl , the *ossibilit of irre*arable dama%e without *roof of actual e$istin% ri%ht is no %round for an in4unction. 9nce a%ain, our holdin% in Selegna is relevant and soundI $ $ $ In4unction is not desi%ned to *rotect contin%ent or future ri%hts. It is not *ro*er when the com*lainant5s ri%ht is doubtful or dis*uted. $ $ $ $ !etitioners do not have an clear ri%ht to be *rotected. As shown in our earlier findin%s, the failed to substantiate their alle%ations that their ri%ht to due *rocess had been violated and the maturit of their obli%ation forestalled. Since the indis*utabl failed to meet their obli%ations in s*ite of re*eated demands, we hold that there is no le%al 4ustification to en4oin res*ondent from enforcin% its undeniable ri%ht to foreclose the mort%a%ed *ro*erties. In an case, *etitioners will not be de*rived outri%htl of their *ro*ert . !ursuant to Section J1 of the Keneral Bankin% Law of HCCC, mort%a%ors who have 4udiciall or e$tra4udiciall sold their real *ro*ert for the full or *artial *a ment of their obli%ation have the ri%ht to redeem the *ro*ert within one ear after the sale. The can redeem their real estate b *a in% the amount due, with interest rate s*ecified, under the mort%a%e deed? as well as all the costs and e$*enses incurred b the bank.,#BEThe !etition is DENIED.

SEC. 3(A) OF RA 9262 - "VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN"