Maniquiz Foundation v. Pizarro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from a loan of one million pesos obtained by Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation, Inc. (complainant) from Don C. Mejia (Mejia), secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon the complainant's default, Mejia initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. The property was sold at public auction to Mejia, who subsequently consolidated ownership and obtained a new title after the complainant failed to exercise its right of redemption. 2. Procedural History: Mejia filed a petition for a writ of possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 222, presided over by respondent Judge Rogelio M. Pizarro. The complainant opposed the petition, arguing for its dismissal or suspension due to a pending civil case for the nullity of the mortgage and sale. The RTC granted Mejia's petition and issued the writ of possession. The complainant's subsequent notice of appeal was denied by the RTC, which reasoned that the complainant had withdrawn its opposition and thus lost its standing in court. The complainant then filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was also denied. The RTC also dismissed the complainant's subsequent appeal, citing the filing of a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals. The RTC later granted Mejia's motion to break open the property to enforce the writ of possession. The Court of Appeals eventually dismissed the certiorari petition, finding no extrinsic fraud. The complainant then filed an administrative complaint against the respondent judge. 3. The Petition: The administrative complaint filed by Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation, Inc. against Judge Rogelio M. Pizarro alleged violations of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically citing bias, partiality, and gross ignorance of the law. The complainant contended that the respondent judge issued orders, including the break-open order, despite the pendency of other related cases and without observing peer courtesy. The complainant also argued that the judge erred in dismissing its appeal and petition for relief from judgment. The Supreme Court, however, found the complaint to be without merit, affirming the respondent judge's actions as either ministerial duties or errors of judgment made in good faith, and noting the complainant's withdrawal of its opposition to the writ of possession as confirmed by an investigation.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge erred in issuing the writ of possession and the break-open order. Whether the respondent judge erred in denying the notice of appeal and dismissing the appeal after a petition for certiorari was filed. Whether the respondent judge acted with bias and partiality.
Ruling
The complaint is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the correctness of the respondent judge's orders regarding the writ of possession and the break-open order. The dismissal of the appeal was also deemed justified. The charges of bias and partiality were not substantiated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of the writ of possession and the break-open order: The Supreme Court reiterated that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is a ministerial function. It is a settled rule that after the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. The pendency of a separate civil suit questioning the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot bar the issuance of the writ of possession. The Court cited Vaca v. Court of Appeals, Vda. De Jacob v. Court of Appeals, Navarra v. Court of Appeals, and Ong v. Court of Appeals to support the principle that the issuance of the writ is ministerial and questions regarding the validity of the sale are to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. The purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession even during the redemption period, and more so after consolidation of ownership. The implementation of the writ by the sheriff is likewise ministerial. On the denial of the notice of appeal and the dismissal of the appeal: The Court noted that the dismissal of the complainant's appeal was premised on its withdrawal of its opposition to the petition for a writ of possession. This withdrawal was confirmed by the investigation and report submitted by Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero of the Court of Appeals. The transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing on December 1, 2000, clearly reflected the withdrawal of opposition by MMFI's counsel. Consequently, the trial court deemed the case submitted for decision. The subsequent filing of a petition for certiorari while an appeal was also pending was viewed by the respondent judge as potentially constituting forum shopping, justifying the dismissal of the appeal. The Court found justification for the respondent's judgment in this regard, stating that even if it were an error, it was an error of judgment for which the respondent cannot be sanctioned in the absence of proof of corrupt or improper motives. On the issue of bias and partiality: The Supreme Court emphasized that in administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of establishing bias and partiality by substantial evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of a judge's functions prevails, and bias cannot be presumed. Bare allegations of bias are insufficient without clear and convincing evidence. The Court reiterated that mere suspicion is not enough; extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. The Court concluded that the complainant miserably failed to support its allegations of bias and partiality, and the charges were reduced to mere indictment without substantiated proof.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is a ministerial function. The pendency of a separate civil suit questioning the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure cannot bar the issuance of the writ of possession, as any question regarding the validity of the sale is to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. A judge cannot be administratively sanctioned for mere errors of judgment in the absence of proof of bad faith, malice, or corrupt motives.