ALLGEMEINE-BAU-CHEMIE PHILS., INC., v. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO., et al.

ALLGEMEINE-BAU-CHEMIE PHILS., INC., v. METROPOLITAN
BANK & TRUST CO., et al.

Allgemein filed before Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court a motion for intervention, with prayer for the annulment of the extra-judicial foreclosure sale, delivery of title, and damages and for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) to consolidate its title and take possession of its properties. The RTC, however, denied the same.

Hence, Allgemein filed a separate petition for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals. The CA denied Allgemein‘s prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction for failure to establish a clear and unmistakable right to the subject properties.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellate court committed grave error in denying Allgemein‘s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction

HELD:

It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action and hence, the jurisdiction of a court, are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. Allgemein‘s only prayer in CA-G.R. No. 71217 is “for the preservation of the status quo, that is, Allgemein, having in possession over the subject properties for several years, shall retain such possession until the controversy before the said trial court has been finally resolved and Metrobank be prevented from taking over such possession.”

Clearly, what Allgemein filed with the appellate court was an original action for preliminary injunction which is a provisional and extra-ordinary remedy calculated to preserve or maintain the status quo of things and is availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts, until the merits of the case can be heard.

An original action for injunction is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, however. Under B.P. 129, the appellate court has original jurisdiction only over actions for annulment of judgments of the RTCs and has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes whether or not they are in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

Thus, for want of jurisdiction, the petition before the appellate court should have been dismissed outright.