Martin v. Mendiola
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute arising from a credit facility granted by Citibank, N.A. to Martin Brizuela, secured by his property. Disagreements over the computation of the debt led to Brizuela filing a case for accounting and injunction against Citibank. Following the dismissal of this case and subsequent appeals, Citibank foreclosed the mortgage. The property was sold at auction to Integrated Credit and Corporate Services Co. (ICCS). Brizuela then filed another case seeking to annul the auction sale, which was also dismissed. ICCS subsequently filed a petition for a writ of possession, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City. 2. Procedural History: After the writ of possession was granted in LRC Case No. M-3510 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City, the Brizuelas caused a notice of lis pendens to be annotated on the property's title, citing their pending appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 47870. They also moved for a stay of the writ of possession, which was denied. ICCS then filed a motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens with respondent Judge Ruben A. Mendiola. Judge Mendiola ordered the cancellation of the notice. The Brizuelas filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. Separately, Josefina E. Costin, the Branch Clerk of Court, issued a certification stating that an order had become final and executory as no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed, despite the Brizuelas having filed a notice of appeal. This complaint for misconduct was filed against Judge Mendiola and Costin. 3. The Petition: The complainant, Martin Brizuela, filed a verified complaint against Judge Ruben A. Mendiola and former Branch Clerk of Court Josefina E. Costin for misconduct. The petition alleges that Judge Mendiola improperly ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens with undue haste, interfering with the appellate court's jurisdiction. It also alleges that Costin maliciously issued a false certification regarding the non-filing of an appeal. The complaint was referred to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, who recommended that Judge Mendiola be fined and Costin be reprimanded, finding the judge liable for unwarranted issuance of the cancellation order and Costin for negligence in issuing a false certification.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Mendiola committed misconduct by ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. Whether respondent Clerk of Court Costin committed misconduct by issuing a false certification.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Ruben A. Mendiola administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct and imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00. Respondent Atty. Josefina E. Costin was reprimanded for negligence and lack of due care in the issuance of a certification.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent Judge Mendiola's order for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens: Respondent judge had no authority to entertain the motion for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The annotation of the notice was made in relation to Civil Case No. 94-1394, which was pending appeal in the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 47870. The cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is an incident of the pending action, and therefore, the matter of its cancellation should have been resolved by the court where the original case was pending or by the appellate court which had jurisdiction over the appeal. Judge Mendiola's order constituted an interference with the business of the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, the motion for cancellation was filed with "indecent haste," set for hearing on the same day it was filed, and in disregard of the three-day notice requirement under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion was also not served on the complainant or his counsel, rendering it a mere scrap of paper that should have been disregarded. This unwarranted issuance of the order demonstrated gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct. On the issue of respondent Clerk of Court Costin's false certification: Respondent Clerk of Court Costin issued a certification stating that an order had become final and executory because no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed. However, the records showed that the Brizuelas had filed a notice of appeal from the order granting the writ of possession. Therefore, it was incorrect for Costin to certify that no appeal was taken. While the appeal was subsequently denied, at the time the certification was issued, the appeal was still pending. The issuance of a false certification, even without malice, creates disturbance and should not go unpunished. Costin was reprimanded for negligence and lack of due care in the issuance of the certification, highlighting the seriousness of her act and the need for awareness of such responsibilities.
Main Doctrine
A judge has no power to entertain a motion for cancellation of a notice of lis pendens when the annotation was made in relation to a case pending appeal in a higher court, as such cancellation is incidental to the pending action and falls within the jurisdiction of the appellate court. Furthermore, a branch clerk of court should not issue a certification stating that an order has become final and executory if an appeal or motion for reconsideration has been filed, even if such appeal is subsequently denied.