CASE 2016- 0030: THE WELLEX GROUP INC VS. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, THE SANDIGANBA YAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, AND BDO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.) ( G.R. No. 211098, 20 APRIL 2016, PEREZ J.) (SUBJECTS: JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN; DECISION NOT BINDING ON PARTIES NOT IMPLEADED; CREDITOR CANNOT UNILATERALLY DISPOSE OF MORTGAGED ASSETS; DUE PROCESS AFFORDED MORTGAGOR) (BRIEF TITLE: THE WELLEX GROUP VS. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA ET AL.)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered GRANTING the instant Petition and SETTING ASIDE the Order dated 9 January 2012 and Resolution dated 15 January 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 132 in Civil Case No. 09-399. This case is hereby remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT ARE THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE?
THE WELLEX GROUP BORROWED FROM THE JOSE VELARDE ACCOUNT (IMA ACCOUNT) BEING MANAGED BY BDO P500,000,000.00 AND AS SECURITY MORTGAGED TO BDO WPI SHARES. THE SANDIGANBAYAN CONVICTED PRES. ESTRADA OF PLUNDER AND DECLARED THAT THE WPI SHARES AMONG OTHERS ARE FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVT. THE JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL. SANDIGANBAYAN WAS ABOUT TO SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION THE WPI SHARES. THE WELLEX GROUP FILED A CASE AT RTC TO STOP THE AUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ALREADY PAID THEIR LOAN DIRECTLY TO JOSE VELARDE AND THEREFORE THEY SHOULD GET BACK THEIR COLLATERAL, THE WPI SHARES. RTC DISMISSED THE CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE RULE ON HIERARCHY OF COURTS.
IS THE LOAN OF THE WELLEX GROUP VALID?
YES, AS DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN A RELATED CASE INVOLVING THE SAME WPI SHARES.
IF THE LOAN IS VALID, WHO IS NOW THE CREDITOR?
THE STATE, IN SUBSTITUTION OF BDO.
CAN THE STATE NOW AUCTION THE WPI SHARES?
NO.
ART 2088 OF THE CIVIL CODE PROHIBITS THE DISPOSAL OR SELLING UNILATERALY BY THE CREDITOR OF ASSETS GIVEN BY WAY OF PLEDGE OR MORTGAGE AND APPLYING THE PROCEEDS TO THE LOAN.
THE CREDITOR MUST FIRST MAKE DEMAND TO PAY AND THEN INITIATE FORECLOSE PROCEEDINGS.
THE DEBTOR MUST BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THE OBLIGATION, OR TO ASSERT ANY CLAIM OR DEFENSE, WHICH THE DEBTOR MAY HAVE AGAINST THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR. THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN IN THEIR DECISION ALREADY DECLARED THAT WELLEX IS CONSIDERED A DELINQUENT DEBTOR. SINCE THE DECISION IS NOW FINAL WILL IT NOW BIND WELLEX GROUP?
NO, SINCE WELLEX WAS NOT IMPLEADED IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN CASE.
IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT NO MAN SHALL BE AFFECTED BY ANY PROCEEDING TO WHICH HE IS A STRANGER, AND STRANGERS TO A CASE ARE NOT BOUND BY ANY JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE COURT.15
DOES SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE FILED BY WELLEX?
NO.
THE CASE OF WELLEX IS PURELY CIVIL.
BUT SUPREME COURT HAS RULED IN MANY CASES THAT SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF A CRIMINAL CASE. IS THIS DOCTRINE NOT VIOLATED?
NO.
THE RTC CASE OF WELLEX GROUP DOES NOT CONCERN THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE CRIMINAL CASE IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN.
THE RTC CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE IMA ACCOUNT AND/OR ANY OF ITS FINANCIAL ASSETS, WHICH, AS ·STATED ABOVE, HAS BEEN ADJUDGED FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF THE STATE.
IN CONTRAST, THE SAID CASE IS AN ORDINARY CIVIL CASE ENTAILING THE PROPRIETY OF THE ACTIONS OF A CREDITOR IN PROCEEDING AGAINST THE SECURITY FOR ITS LOAN, WHICH NECESSITATES THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL CODE, THEREFORE FALLING UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 