International Copra Export Corp. v. Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 192732. October 6, 2021.]

INTERNATIONAL COPRA EXPORT CORPORATION, INTERCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, LUYS SECURITIES COMPANY, INC., MANDARIN SECURITIES CORPORATION, CHARLES H. SHIH, ICEC LAND CORPORATION, LUY KIM GUAN, ENRIQUE LUY, SR., ERNESTO LUY, AURORA LUY SHIH, ENRIQUE LUY, JR., EDWIN LUY, AND EMMANUEL F. LUY, petitioners, vs.BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., respondent.

[G.R. No. 200668. October 6, 2021.]

INTERNATIONAL COPRA EXPORT CORPORATION, INTERCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, LUYS SECURITIES COMPANY, INC., MANDARIN SECURITIES CORPORATION, CHARLES H. SHIH, ICEC LAND CORPORATION, LUY KIM GUAN, ENRIQUE LUY, SR., ERNESTO LUY, AURORA LUY SHIH, ENRIQUE LUY, JR., EDWIN LUY, AND EMMANUEL F. LUY, petitioners, vs.BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., respondent.

[G.R. No. 201026. October 6, 2021.]

BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., petitioner, vs.INTERNATIONAL COPRA EXPORT CORPORATION, INTERCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, LUYS SECURITIES COMPANY, INC., MANDARIN SECURITIES CORPORATION, CHARLES H. SHIH, ICEC LAND CORPORATION, LUY KIM GUAN, ENRIQUE LUY, SR., ERNESTO LUY, AURORA LUY SHIH, ENRIQUE LUY, JR., EDWIN LUY, AND EMMANUEL F. LUY, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 192732 (INTERNATIONAL COPRA EXPORT CORPORATION, INTERCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, LUYS SECURITIES COMPANY, INC., MANDARIN SECURITIES CORPORATION, CHARLES H. SHIH, ICEC LAND CORPORATION, LUY KIM GUAN, ENRIQUE LUY, SR., ERNESTO LUY, AURORA LUY SHIH, ENRIQUE LUY, JR., EDWIN LUY, and EMMANUEL F. LUY, petitioners, v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., respondent); G.R. No. 200668 (INTERNATIONAL COPRA EXPORT CORPORATION, INTERCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, LUYS SECURITIES COMPANY, INC., MANDARIN SECURITIES CORPORATION, CHARLES H. SHIH, ICEC LAND CORPORATION, LUY KIM GUAN, ENRIQUE LUY, SR., ERNESTO LUY, AURORA LUY SHIH, ENRIQUE LUY, JR., EDWIN LUY, and EMMANUEL F. LUY, petitioners, v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., respondent); G.R. No. 201026 (BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL COPRA EXPORT CORPORATION, INTERCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, LUYS SECURITIES COMPANY, INC., MANDARIN SECURITIES CORPORATION, CHARLES H. SHIH, ICEC LAND CORPORATION, LUY KIM GUAN, ENRIQUE LUY, SR., ERNESTO LUY, AURORA LUY SHIH, ENRIQUE LUY, JR., EDWIN LUY, and EMMANUEL F. LUY, respondents). — This Court's judicial power is limited to settling actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights. 1 We decline to resolve moot cases, or else the ruling will be a mere advisory opinion. 2

Before this Court are three consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari. The cases arose from a collection suit filed by Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc. (BDO) for the unpaid loans that Equitable PCI Bank (EPCI Bank) had extended to the LKG Group, comprising the International Copra Export Corporation, Interco Manufacturing Corporation, Triton Securities Corporation, Charles H. Shih, ICEC Land Corporation, Luy Kim Guan, Enrique Luy Sr., Ernesto Luy, and Emmanuel F. Luy (Emmanuel). The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 09-362, was instituted by BDO as the surviving entity after it and EPCI Bank had merged. 3 CAIHTE

In its Complaint, BDO prayed for a writ of preliminary attachment. Initially, it did not implead Emmanuel, who was a surety. 4 Later, however, BDO filed a Supplemental Complaint 5 impleading him, which the Regional Trial Court 6 and, later, the Court of Appeals allowed. 7 This prompted the LKG Group to file before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 8 docketed as G.R. No. 200668.

Meanwhile, the Regional Trial Court had issued the Writ of Preliminary Attachment 9 sought by BDO, only to later withdraw it. 10

The Court of Appeals, however, reinstated 11 the Writ. Thus, the LKG Group filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 12 docketed as G.R. No. 192732. While this was pending, BDO sought the Writ's immediate enforcement, which the Regional Trial Court refused. 13 This led BDO to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 14 docketed as G.R. No. 201026.

The issues for this Court's resolution are:

First, whether or not the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment was improper;

Second, whether or not the Court of Appeals' reinstatement of the Writ has become final and executory, with which the Regional Trial Court was constrained to comply; and

Finally, whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in admitting the Supplemental Complaint and including Emmanuel F. Luy as a defendant.

However, on April 28, 2021, BDO filed a Manifestation, 15 submitting copies of: (a) the Regional Trial Court's January 25, 2017 Decision 16 and September 13, 2017 Order in Civil Case No. 09-362; 17 (b) the Court of Appeals' November 22, 2018 Decision 18 and July 3, 2019 Resolution, 19 resolving the LKG Group's appeal; (c) this Court's October 14, 2019 and July 1, 2020 Resolutions in G.R. No. 248121, resolving the LKG Group's further appeal; 20 and (d) the Entry of Judgment. 21

In its 2017 Decision, the Regional Trial Court ruled on the merits of the collection suit, finding the defendants, including Emmanuel, solidarily liable. In so doing, it rendered BDO's prayer for the reinstatement of the Writ of Preliminary Attachment functus officio. Recognizing the futility of pursuing the Writ, BDO disavowed any interest in still availing itself of the reliefs in the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 192732 and 200668.

Both the Court of Appeals 22 and this Court 23 upheld the Regional Trial Court's ruling, except on the interest and attorney's fees. On July 1, 2020, entry of judgment was made. 24 Thus, it has become immutable. 25

The finality of the Regional Trial Court's January 25, 2017 Decision renders fait accompli the bases not only of BDO's prayers to reinstate the Writ of Preliminary Attachment, but also of the LKG Group's prayers to strike off the Supplemental Complaint. It likewise puts to rest incidental questions, including the matters disputed in the present cases. As a mere provisional remedy, the Writ is no longer available. Judgment on the LKG Group's collective liability has been settled, and it is pointless to revisit whether Emmanuel's inclusion was proper. These Petitions are moot and non-justiciable; their adjudication serves no practical value. 26

Courts decline to resolve moot cases; otherwise, the ruling will result in a mere advisory opinion. 27 Here, supervening realities have rendered the Petitions' prayers moot and have reduced any discussion on their grant to an academic exercise, warranting the cases' termination.

WHEREFORE, Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.'s April 28, 2021 Manifestation is NOTED. Considering that the issues in G.R. Nos. 192732, 200668, and 201026 relate to provisional matters which have become moot in light of the Regional Trial Court's January 25, 2017 Decision in Civil Case No. 09-362 attaining finality and the entry of judgment having been made, the cases are considered CLOSED and TERMINATED. DETACa

SO ORDERED." (Dimaampao, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2839.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. CONST., art. VIII, sec. 1 provides:

SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

2. Express Telecommunications Co., Inc. v. AZ Communications, Inc., G.R. No. 196902, July 13, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66473> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

3. Rollo (G.R. No. 200668), p. 124. Supplemental Complaint, fn. 1.

4. During the proceedings in the main case, upon motion of the parties, the Regional Trial Court discharged the following defendants with prejudice: Luys Securities Company, Inc., Mandarin Securities Corporation, Triton Securities Corporation, Charles H. Shih, Enrique Luy, Jr., Edwin Luy, and Aurora Luy Shih.

5. Rollo (G.R. No. 200668); pp. 124-143.

6. Id. at 152 and 154.

7. Id. at 50-65. The July 7, 2011 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Angelita A. Gacutan of the Seventeenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

8. Id. at 9-48.

9. Rollo (G.R. No. 192732), pp. 208-209.

10. Id. at 366-374.

11. Id. at 68-96. The March 12, 2010 Amended Decision was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Arcangelita M. Romila Lontok and Sesinando E. Villon of the Special Former Special Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

12. Id. at 13-66.

13. Rollo (G.R. No. 201026), p. 12.

14. Id. at 11-68.

15. April 28, 2021 Manifestation.

16. Id. at 3 and Annex 1. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Andres Bartolome Soriano of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 148.

17. Id. at 2.

18. Id. at 11 and Annex 2. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rafael Antonio M. Santos of the Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

19. Id. at 11-12 and Annex 3. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rafael Antonio M. Santos of the Former Eighth Division of the court of Appeals, Manila.

20. Id. at 11-12 and Annexes 4 and 5.

21. Id. at 12 and Annex 6.

23. Id. at 11-12 and Annexes 2 and 3.

24. Id. at 11-12 and Annexes 4 and 5.

24. Id. at 12 and Annex 6.

25. Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp., 512 Phil. 679 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].

26. Express Telecommunications Co., Inc. v. AZ Communications, Inc., G.R. No. 196902, July 13, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66473> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 728 Phil. 535, 540 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

27. Id.