City Sheriff, Iligan City v. Fortunado
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Alfaro, Editha, and Nestor Fortunado are the registered owners of two parcels of land in Iligan City. These properties were mortgaged by Arsenio Lopez, Jr. to Traders Commercial Bank (now Traders Royal Bank) in 1968 to secure a loan of P370,000.00. The respondents later filed an action to annul this mortgage, while the bank filed a counterclaim for foreclosure. The trial court declared the mortgage null and void but ordered the mortgagors, spouses Arsenio and Ofelia Lopez, to pay the bank P578,025.23 plus interest and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals modified this decision by eliminating the declaration that the mortgage was null and void, affirming other aspects. 2. Procedural History: On December 28, 1983, Traders Royal Bank assigned its mortgage rights to petitioner Angel L. Bautista. Subsequently, on March 19, 1984, petitioner Bautista requested the City Sheriff of Iligan City to foreclose the mortgaged properties due to non-payment. In response, respondents filed a complaint for cancellation of lien with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 262) before the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Branch V, to prevent the foreclosure. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint on July 31, 1985, but later reconsidered and modified its decision on January 24, 1986, making the injunction permanent and ordering the cancellation of the lien on TCT No. T-3041. Petitioner appealed this modified decision to the Court of Appeals, which, on August 28, 1987, forwarded the case to the Supreme Court, deeming the issues raised as questions of law. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari was filed by petitioner City Sheriff of Iligan City and Spouses Angel L. and Angelica M. Bautista, seeking to nullify the January 24, 1986 Order of the Regional Trial Court. They contend that the trial court erred in modifying its earlier decision, in declaring that petitioner Bautista had no right to foreclose the mortgaged property, in converting the temporary restraining order into a permanent injunction, and in ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel the lien. However, during the pendency of the petition, respondents filed a manifestation on January 30, 1995, asserting that the mortgage had been released by Traders Royal Bank on December 23, 1983, and that petitioner Angel L. Bautista had died. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic, and reprimanded petitioner's counsel for failing to inform the court of the petitioner's death and his change of address.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari has become moot and academic due to the release of the real estate mortgage. Whether the trial court erred in modifying its earlier decision. Whether the petitioner has the right to foreclose the mortgaged property (addressed within the mootness issue). Whether the temporary restraining order should be converted into a permanent preliminary injunction (not explicitly addressed, impliedly moot). Whether the Register of Deeds should be ordered to cancel entry No. 451 on TCT No. 3041 (not explicitly addressed, impliedly moot). Whether petitioner's counsel failed to comply with his duty to inform the court of the death of a party and update his address.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. Atty. Emilio Abrogena, counsel for petitioner, is reprimanded for his failure to inform the Court of the petitioner's death and to perform his duty under Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, and is warned against future omissions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for having been rendered moot and academic. This was based on the respondents' manifestation, supported by a certified true copy, that the subject real estate mortgage had already been released by Traders Royal Bank. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that courts will not determine a moot question or abstract proposition nor express an opinion in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. Therefore, resolving the basic issue of whether the petitioner had the right to foreclose the mortgage was no longer necessary as the mortgage itself was extinguished by its release. Any ruling on the merits would serve no useful purpose. On the issue of the trial court's decision: No specific ratio decidendi is provided regarding whether the trial court erred in modifying its earlier decision. This issue is not addressed in the provided text. On the issue of the right to foreclose: Addressed within the mootness discussion. The release of the mortgage renders the issue of the right to foreclose moot. On the issue of the temporary restraining order and cancellation of entry: These issues are not explicitly addressed but are impliedly moot due to the release of the mortgage. On the issue of the temporary restraining order and cancellation of entry: These issues are not explicitly addressed but are impliedly moot due to the release of the mortgage. On the duty of counsel: The Court took notice of the failure of petitioner's lawyer, Atty. Emilio Abrogena, to inform the trial court and the Supreme Court of the death of the petitioner. This failure contravened Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after a party's death of the fact thereof and to provide the name and address of the legal representative. The Court emphasized that a lawyer is an officer of the court, and their duties to the administration of justice are paramount. The failure to comply with this duty is a ground for disciplinary action. The Court also noted Atty. Abrogena's failure to inform the Supreme Court of his change of address, which resulted in the resolution addressed to him being returned unclaimed. This prevented him from commenting on the manifestation regarding the petitioner's death and the release of the mortgage. The Court stressed that a lawyer's conduct must always be scrupulously observant of the law and the ethics of the profession, and their duties to the court are more significant than those owed to the client.
Main Doctrine
A case becomes moot and academic when the issues presented are no longer susceptible to practical resolution, rendering any judgment purely advisory. Furthermore, counsel has a mandatory duty to inform the court of a party's death and provide the legal representative's details, the breach of which may warrant disciplinary action.