TRADERS ROYAL BANK V.
IAC
GR NO. L-66321 | OCTOBER 31, 1984
J. Escolin
Ebalobo | Group 2
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: Traders Royal Bank
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: The Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Hon.
Jesus R. De Vega, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial
Region, Branch Ix, Malolos, Bulacan, La Tondeña, Inc., Victorino P. Evangelista, in his
capacity as Ex-Oficio Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, and/or any and all his Deputies
TOPIC: (as stated in the syllabus)
• Preliminary Injunction
CASE SUMMARY: Traders Bank filed a collection suit against Remco. La Tondena
filed a 3rd-Party claim and a complaint in intervention with the RTC-Pasay, claiming
ownership over some of the attached properties, which was denied. Later, La
Tondena field a separate case before the RTC-Malolos for preliminary injunction,
which was granted. Traders opposed, alleging that the order of the RTC-Malolos
constituted undue and illegal interference with the RTC-Pasay’s authority. The SC
held that it was not (see doctrine)
DOCTRINE: Rule 57, Section 14 of the RoC sets forth the remedy that may be availed
of by a person who claims to be the owner of property levied upon by attachment,
which is to lodge a third-party claim with the sheriff, and if the attaching creditor
posts an indemnity bond in favor of the sheriff, to file a separate and independent
action to vindicate his claim.
Generally, the rule that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the
judgments or decrees of a concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal power
to grant the injunctive relief sought by injunction, is applied in cases where no third-
party claimant is involved, in order to prevent one court from nullifying the
judgment or process of another court of the same rank or category, a power which
devolves upon the proper appellate court.
The purpose of the rule is to avoid conflict of power between different courts of
coordinate jurisdiction and to bring about a harmonious and smooth functioning of
their proceedings.
TERMS: (technical/legal terms)
• n/a
PRECEDENTS:
• n/a
FACTS:
• Traders Bank instituted a suit against Remco before the RTC of Pasay for the
recovery of P2,382,258.71 and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment
directed against the assets and properties of Remco.
• Pursuant to said writ, the deputy sheriff levied among others 4,600 barrels of
aged alcohol
• La Tondena filed a 3rd-Party claim with the Deputy Sheriff claiming
ownership over said attached property. Later, it filed a complaint-in-
intervention alleging that it had made advanced to Remco of P3M which
remained outstanding.
• Subsequently, without the complaint-in-intervention having been passed
upon by the RTC-Pasay, La Tondena filed a Motion to Withdraw, praying
that it be allowed to withdraw alcohol and molasses from Remco, which was
affirmed by RTC-Pasay.
• However, RTC-Pasay reconsidered and declared that the alcohol remains in
the ownership of Remco and likewise denied La Tondena’s Motion to
Intervene
• La Tondena filed an MR, but later filed a manifestation withdrawing its MR
despite the same not being resolved yet.
• La Tondena then instituted a separate Civil Case in the RTC-Malolos
asserting its claim of ownership over the properties and prayed for the
issuance of a writ of Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction
• Traders Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Opposition to the application
for a writ of Preliminary Injunction, which was followed by La Tondena’s
opposition to the MtD.
• The RTC-Malolos issued an order declaring La Tondena to be the owner of
the disputed alcohol and granted injunctive relief. The Sheriff of RTC-
Malolos issued on the Deputy Sheriff of Pasay the writ of preliminary
injunction.
• This was followed by an order of the RTC-Pasay requiring its Deputy Sheriff
to enforce said writ.
• Traders then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the IAC, with
application for a writ of preliminary injunction to annul and set aside the
order of RTC-Malolos.
• The IAC dismissed the petition for lack of factual and legal basis and held
that the RTC-Malolos did not abuse its discretion when it issued the order.
• Traders then filed a petition for certiorari with the SC. It argued that the
RTC-Malolos’ Order constitutes undue and illegal interference with the
exercise by the RTC-Pasay of its coordinate and co-equal authority on
matters brought before it.
ISSUES:
 • WON…the order of RTC-Malolos constituted undue and illegal
interference

RULING: (Doctrine in bold letters)

• 1st issue: No, it did not.

o Rule 57, Section 14 of the RoC sets forth the remedy that may be
availed of by a person who claims to be the owner of property
levied upon by attachment, which is to lodge a third-party claim
with the sheriff, and if the attaching creditor posts an indemnity
bond in favor of the sheriff, to file a separate and independent
action to vindicate his claim.
o Generally, the rule that no court has the power to interfere by
injunction with the judgments or decrees of a concurrent or
coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the
injunctive relief sought by injunction, is applied in cases where
no third-party claimant is involved, in order to prevent one court
from nullifying the judgment or process of another court of the
same rank or category, a power which devolves upon the proper
appellate court.
o The purpose of the rule is to avoid conflict of power between
different courts of coordinate jurisdiction and to bring about a
harmonious and smooth functioning of their proceedings.
o As to the argument that since La Tondena voluntarily submitted
itself to the jurisdiction of the RTC-Pasay by filing a motion to
intervene and that the denial thereof is a bar to the action before the
RTC-Malolos, the Court ruled that intervention as a means of
protecting the third-party claimant’s right in an attachment
proceeding is not exclusive but cumulative and suppletory to the
right to bring an independent suit. The denial or dismissal of a
third-party claim to property levied upon cannot operate to bar a
subsequent independent action by the claimant to establish his
right to the property even if he failed to appeal from the order
denying his original third-party claim.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby dismissed and the

decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. No. SP-01860 is affirmed,
with costs against petitioner Traders Royal Bank.

PROVISIONS:

• .