[G.R. No. 133862. June 5, 2006]

ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST, PETITIONER v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EUDARLIO B. VALENCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 222, QUEZON CITY, AND FELICIDAD AND REYNALDO CALIMBAS, RESPONDENTS

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated JUNE 5, 2006

G.R. No. 133862 (Asset Privatization Trust, Petitioner v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Eudarlio B. Valencia, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 222, Quezon City, and Felicidad and Reynaldo Calimbas, Respondents.)

This petition for review[1] assails the 15 May 1998 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41520 which merely noted petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction.

Respondents Felicidad and Reynaldo Calimbas filed a complaint for specific performance and consignation with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction against Philippine National Bank (PNB) and petitioner Asset Privatization Trust (APT).

The trial court issued a TRO in its Order dated 24 October 1995.

APT filed on 15 November 1995 a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action.

On 23 November 1995, the trial court granted respondents' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. On 4 January 1996, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

APT filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Orders dated 23 November 1995 and 4 January 1996.

In its Order dated 9 February 1996, the trial court denied APT's Motion to Dismiss. APT filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Order.

On 17 June 1996, the trial court issued an Order denying APT's two Motions for Reconsideration. The first motion for reconsideration dated 8 January 1996 pertains to the Order of the trial court granting and issuing a writ of preliminary injunction against APT. The second motion for reconsideration dated 11 March 1996 refers to the Order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss filed by APT.

Aggrieved, APT filed a petition for certiorari[3] with the Court of Appeals.

In its Decision[4] of 24 January 1997, the Court of Appeals lifted the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. However, the Court of Appeals did not discuss the motion to dismiss filed by APT. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is given DUE COURSE. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by Judge Eudarlio Valencia in Civil Case No. Q-095-25261 is hereby lifted and set aside. The orders dated November 23, 1995 and June 17, 1996 are also declared to be null and void.

SO ORDERED.[5]

APT filed a Motion to Clarify Decision because the Court of Appeals did not distinctly rule on the trial court's denial of APT's motion to dismiss the complaint.

The question therefore is whether the Court of Appeals, in annulling the 17 June 1996 Order of the trial court, included the dismissal of the case against APT.

The Court holds that the Court of Appeals, in lifting and setting aside the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Eudarlio Valencia in Civil Case No. Q-095-25261, did not obviously include the dismissal of the case against APT. As stated by the Court of Appeals, the issue of whether the contract of sale between PNB and respondents binds APT should be resolved by the trial court.

WHEREFORE, the Court REMANDS this case to the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 222 for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

---

[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

[2] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona, with Associate Justices Artemon D. Luna and Ricardo P. Galvez, concurring.

[3] Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

[4] Penned by Associate Justice Maximiano C. Asuncion, with Associate Justices Artemon D. Luna and Ramon A. Barcelona, concurring.

[5] Rollo, p. 24.