Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Cebu City ‘TWENTIETH DIVISION PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT CA-G.R. SP NO. 14757 ‘ONE (SPV-AMC), INC., Petitioner, Members: CORPIN, R., Chairperson, DADOLE-YGNACIO, and GENGOS-IGNALAGA, si HON. MARIO 0. QUINIT AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ORMOC CITY (BRANCH 12), Promulgated: ep 2 9 Ath SPOUSES ARMANDO GO AND WILMAR PASTOR GO, ‘Respondent a) DECISION DADOLE-YGNACIO, J: Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari' filed by petitioner Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. (hereinafter petitioner), secking the reversal of the 5 September 2021° and 25 October 2021° Orders of the Regional ‘Trial Court (RTC), 8" Judicial Region, Branch 12, Ormoc City, in Civil Case No, 3316-0, which granted the Manifestation with Motion to Order Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to Release onDocuments Pursuant to Section 27 (c) of R.A. 7653," filed by private respondents spouses Armando Go and Wilma Pastor Go (hereinafter private respondents) and subsequently denied its Motion for Reconsideration,° respectively. ‘The Facts Sometime in 1992, private respondents obtained several loans from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). To secure the loans, private respondents mortgaged several real properties and chattels in favor of DBP. When the loans fell due, private respondents failed to pay their obligations. Due to the ‘failure of private respondents to pay the loans, DBP instituted foreclosure proceedings against the mortgaged properties. On 21 September 1995, private respondents filed an Amended Complaint’ for Specific Performance, Reformation of Contracts and Documents, Damages and Injunction with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction against DBP before the RTC, which was then presided by Judge Francisco H. Escaio, Jr. On 22 September 1995, the RTC issued an Order” granting private respondents’ ex-parte prayer for the issuance of a restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction against DBP to cease and desist from selling the properties offered as collaterals of the mortgages subject of the case. (On 3 November 1995, DBP filed its Answer." REEEEOn 10 September 2007, DBP and petitioner executed a Deed of Assignment,’ wherein the former sold, assigned and ‘conveyed to the latter the non-performing loans of private respondents. By virtue of the Deed of Assignment, petitioner filed its Answer’ alleging that it is an assignee of private respondents’ loans from DBP. As an assignee, petitioner has stepped into the shoes of DBP as regards the right to collect on private respondents’ unpaid loans as well as the right to foreclose on the mortgaged properties, Subsequently, private respondents again amended their complaint to include petitioner as co-defendant with DBP. On 23 July 2019, private respondents filed a Manifestation with Motion to Order Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to Release Documents Pursuant to Section 27 (c) of R.A. 7653," arguing that it is imperative that they be provided with information as to the transaction details on DBP's transfer of their loan obligations to petitioner in order for them exercise their rights under R.A. No. 9182 or the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Act of 2002, the Civil Code of the Philippines and applicable jurisprudence, In its Comment/Opposition'? dated 2 January 2020, petitioner argued that private respondents’ earlier Motion for Production of Additional Documents (Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court)" dated 3 October 2016 had already been denied by the RTC, in its Order" dated 23 January 2017. It continued to argue that private respondents’ latest motion isjust a circumvention of the RTC's ruling on their previous motion wherein they requested for documents, relating to information which are completely immaterial and irrelevant to the subject matter of the act complained of. Petitioner alleged that Section 27 (c) of R.A. No. 7653 provides for the revelation, except under orders of the court, of information relating to the condition or business of any institution, and not to information relating to the transfer of the loan obligations from a financial institution to an SPV, even if it is available and obtainable from BSP. It likewise insisted that the documents are not those documents or information related to the condition or business of any institution contemplated by law. Thus, petitioner sought for the denial of private respondents’ motion. On 13 February 2020, private respondents filed another Manifestation and Motion,” alleging that petitioner cannot ‘compel them to pay more that what it paid for the assignment of their loan obligations and the redemption period of thirty (30) days prescribed under Article 1634 of the Civil Code of the Philippines will not commence to run until petitioner discloses to them the actual price it paid for the assignment. On 5 September 2021, public respondent issued the first assailed Order” granting private respondents’ motion, viz: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintifs) Motion to Order BSP to Release Documents is hereby Granted, ‘The BSP Deputy Governor is hereby ordered to submit to this Court, within thirty (80) days from receipt of this Order, certified true copies ofthe following documents: 16 Sip, NowaAG R spa, 14757 Page So 4 1, Centifcate of Eligibility of DBP's transfer of Spouses Armando Go and Wilma Pastor Go's Secured Loan Obligatioin] to Lehman Brothers Asian Investments, Ld, and/or to Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. 2, DBP's application for COE of Spouses Armando Go and Wilman Pastor Go's secured loan obligation a8 a "non~ performing asset” of the bank including any and all Attachments thereto most specifically DBP's description insufficient “detail of its proposed transaction, ‘dentiving its counterparty /ies and DI[S|CLOSING the terms, conditions and all material commitment related to the transaction: 3. Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 16 October 2006 executed by and between DBP and Lehman Brothers Asian Investments, Lid, as assigned (0 Philippine Investment One [SPV-AMC}, Ine; 4. Deed of Absolute Sale dated 10 September 2007) executed by and between DBP alsid Philippine Tavestment One (SPV-AMC], Ine; and 5, Any and all relevant documents and papers of DBPS transfer of Spouses Armando Go and Wilma Pastor Go's Secured Loan Obligation to Lehman Brothers Asian Investments, Lid., and/or Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), inc. 80 ORDERED.” Subsequently, the Motion for Reconsideration’” filed by petitioner was denied by public respondent in his second assailed Order" dated 25 October 2021. Undaunted, petitioner filed the herein petition for certiorari raising the following issues: Supra, Note 5 Sire Note 3, ro1 “THE HON, PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED ORDERS BECAUSE RES JUDICATA HAS ALREADY SET oe ao “THE HON, PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED ORDERS BECAUSE SECTION 27 (C) OF RA 7653 (THE NEW CENTRAL BANK ACT) CANNOT BE APPLIED.” a “THE HON, PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED ORDERS BECAUSE ARTICLE 1643 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE CANNOT BE APPLIED." In its Petition,” petitioner insists that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to apply the principle of res judicata as private respondents earlier filed fa similar motion entitled Motion for Production for Additional Documents, which was denied by then Presiding Judge Nuevo, in a Order dated 23 January 2017. It argues that the Order dated 23 January 2017 had already attained finality and conclusiveness between the parties. Petitioner maintains that public respondent unduly stretched the application of Section 27 (c) of the New Central Bank Act to apply to the documents relating to the assignment of private respondents’ loans as the said section applies merely to “information relating to the condition or business of any institution.” It then opines that since the provision is clear, then there should be no room for an expanded interpretation,