Lim, Sr. v. Tambago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Vicente P. Lim, Sr. was the highest bidder of three parcels of land under TCT No. T-9228, T-8472, and T-8335, owned by spouses Porderio and Liza Orbiso, sold at public auction by DBP for P1,470,000.00. On November 4, 1997, respondent Atty. Rolando G. Sandigan, Clerk of Court VI and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, issued a Certificate of Sale in favor of Miss Susana Y. Lim. On October 30, 1998, Sandigan notified Lim that the mortgagors-spouses Orbiso would redeem the property on November 3, 1998. On November 3, 1998, the mortgagors did not appear, and Lim requested a certificate of final sale, which the sheriff denied. On November 5, 1998, Lim was notified that the mortgagors were present to redeem. The sheriff computed the redemption price at P1,650,503.00. On November 6, 1998, the last day to redeem, the Orbisos filed a notice of redemption and an "Ex-Parte Motion to Pay and Deposit to the Judgment Creditor through the Office of the Provincial Sheriff." Respondent Judge Jacinta B. Tambago granted the motion, directing the sheriff to receive P1,646,400.00 plus P4,103.00 for registration fees, totaling P1,650,503.00. Respondent sheriff accepted the redemption money in cash, though the official receipt indicated "Treasury Warrant" as the form of payment. On the same day, upon motion, respondent Judge issued an Order granting the ex-parte motion for the issuance of a certificate of redemption and directed the sheriff to issue it to the spouses Orbisos. The redemption money was deposited with the Land Bank. Procedural History: Complainant Lim filed administrative complaints against Atty. Sandigan for abuse of authority, grave misconduct, oppression, and harassment for issuing the Certificate of Redemption without his consent and refusing to issue a certificate of final sale. Lim also filed a complaint against Judge Tambago for abuse of authority, serious misconduct, oppression, harassment, conduct unbecoming a Judge, and violation of R.A. No. 3019, questioning the propriety of the two orders dated November 6, 1998, which allowed the redemption payment and issuance of the certificate of redemption without affording him an opportunity to comment or oppose, thus denying him due process. The two complaints were consolidated. The case was referred to Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. Justice Morales recommended the dismissal of the charges for lack of merit. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the investigating justice. The Petition: The complainant contended that the mortgagor-spouses Orbisos waived their right to redeem because they failed to appear and pay on November 3, 1998. He also assailed the two orders dated November 6, 1998, for denying him due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the mortgagor-spouses Orbisos waived their right to redeem the foreclosed property by failing to appear and pay on November 3, 1998. Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of authority, serious misconduct, oppression, harassment, conduct unbecoming of a judge, and violated R.A. No. 3019 by issuing orders allowing the redemption payment and issuance of a certificate of redemption without affording the complainant an opportunity to comment or oppose. Whether the respondent Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff committed grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of a sheriff by issuing the Certificate of Redemption without the complainant's consent and refusing to issue a certificate of final sale.
Ruling
The complaints against Judge Jacinta B. Tambago and Atty. Rolando G. Sandigan are hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the waiver of redemption: The Court found that the redemption made by the mortgagor-spouses on November 6, 1998, was within the period prescribed by Rule 39, Section 28 of the Revised Rules of Court. This rule provides that the judgment obligor or redemptioner may redeem the property from the purchaser at any time within one (1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale. In this case, the certificate of sale was inscribed in the Register of Deeds on November 6, 1997. Therefore, the mortgagors had until November 6, 1998, to exercise their right of redemption. The complainant's contention that the mortgagors waived their right by failing to appear on November 3, 1998, was thus without merit, as the redemption period extended beyond that date. On the alleged abuse of authority and denial of due process by the respondent Judge: The Court found no merit in the charges against Judge Tambago. Her questioned orders were issued in accordance with law. The ex-parte motion to pay and deposit was filed on the last day of redemption, and the judge acted promptly to allow the redemption. The complainant's claim of denial of due process was unsubstantiated, as the redemption period was still open and the mortgagors were exercising their legal right. The judge's actions were aimed at facilitating the lawful redemption of the property, not to prejudice the complainant. On the alleged misconduct of the respondent Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff: The Court also found no merit in the charges against Atty. Sandigan. His refusal to issue a certificate of final sale on November 3, 1998, was justified because the redemption period had not yet expired. His subsequent acceptance of the redemption money and issuance of the certificate of redemption were done pursuant to the orders of respondent Judge Tambago. Therefore, he acted within the bounds of his duties and in compliance with the court's directives. The complainant's allegations of abuse of authority and misconduct were not supported by evidence.
Main Doctrine
The redemption made by mortgagor-spouses on November 6, 1998, was within the one-year period prescribed by Rule 39, Section 28 of the Revised Rules of Court, as the certificate of sale was inscribed in the Register of Deeds on November 6, 1997.