PDCP Development Bank v. Vestil
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: PDCP Development Bank (complainant) was the mortgagee of properties owned by the spouses Suico. Upon the Suicos' failure to pay their loan, the complainant initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. The properties were sold at auction, with the complainant as the highest bidder. After the redemption period expired without redemption by the Suicos, the complainant consolidated ownership and obtained a writ of possession from Branch 28 of the RTC of Mandaue City. Procedural History: Meanwhile, the Suicos filed a case for Specific Performance, Injunction and Damages (Civil Case No. 2321) before Branch 56 of the RTC of Mandaue, presided over by respondent Judge Augustine Vestil. This case was premised on an alleged agreement where the Suicos would deliberately default, allowing foreclosure, in exchange for a right to redeem at an agreed price. The Suicos sought a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of the writ of possession issued by Branch 28. Respondent judge issued the writ of preliminary injunction despite the complainant's motion to dismiss and opposition. The Petition: The complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent judge, alleging gross ignorance of the law, open defiance to jurisprudence, interference with a co-equal court, gross dereliction of duty, bias, and grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and open defiance to established jurisprudence for issuing a writ of injunction to be enforced beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Whether respondent judge committed interference with the proceeding of a co-equal and coordinate court for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which obstructs the implementation of the writ of possession issued by Branch 28. Whether respondent judge committed gross dereliction of duty for failing to dismiss Civil Case No. 2321 on the grounds of lis pendens, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping; and whether respondent judge committed bias for allowing one of the Suicos to adduce testimonial evidence to prove an unenforceable contract; and whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction even when it was apparent that the Suicos did not seek to exercise the right of redemption themselves but proposed a third party to do so. On the penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Augustine A. Vestil liable for grave abuse of discretion for interfering in the proceedings of a co-equal and coordinate court. The Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on the respondent judge, with a warning that a commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of territorial jurisdiction: The Court found the contention that the writ of injunction was to be enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction to be without merit. Trial courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of injunction to control or restrain acts within their territorial boundaries. In this case, the act sought to be restrained was the enforcement of the writ of possession by the sheriff of Mandaue City against properties located in Mandaue City. On the issue of interference with a co-equal court: The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction. The issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction by respondent judge was a clear act of interference with the judgment and order of Branch 28 of the RTC of Mandaue, a co-equal court. Branch 28 had the authority to issue the writ of possession, which is a right of the purchaser after the redemption period has expired without redemption, as provided by Sections 29 to 31 and Section 35 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The injunction effectively restrained the enforcement of the writ of possession, leaving the complainant with an "empty bag." On the other charges: The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that the other charges were subjudice and judicial matters not subject to administrative scrutiny. Therefore, the respondent judge was found liable only for grave abuse of discretion for interfering with the proceedings of a court of co-equal jurisdiction. On the penalty: While the OCA recommended censure and admonition, the Supreme Court deemed a more severe penalty appropriate due to the violation of a basic principle of law and judicial ethics. Citing previous cases where judges were fined for similar acts, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on respondent judge, with a stern warning against future transgressions.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits grave abuse of discretion and violates the elementary rule of non-interference with proceedings of a court of co-equal jurisdiction by issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that interferes with or frustrates the implementation of an order of another court of co-equal jurisdiction.