Mallari v. Government Service Insurance System
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1968, Eligio P. Mallari obtained two loans totaling P34,000.00 from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), securing them with a mortgage on two parcels of land registered in his and his wife's names. Mallari made partial payments of P10,000.00 in 1978 and P20,000.00 later that year, but failed to settle the outstanding balance. Despite demands and reminders from GSIS, Mallari repeatedly delayed payment and the foreclosure proceedings. Procedural History: After Mallari's continued non-payment and delays, GSIS initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Mallari filed a case to enjoin the foreclosure, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in his favor, nullifying the foreclosure. GSIS appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's decision. Mallari's subsequent petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied, making the CA's decision final and executory. GSIS then moved for execution and a writ of possession, which the RTC granted. Mallari filed further motions to quash the writ and initiated a second case, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata. His contempt charges against GSIS were also dismissed. The RTC's orders denying his motions and directing the re-implementation of the writ of possession were subsequently affirmed by the CA. The Petition: Petitioner Mallari filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision that dismissed his petition for certiorari. He argued that the RTC's orders granting the ex parte motion for execution and writ of possession, directing its re-implementation, and denying his motion for reconsideration were null and void. Mallari contended that these orders were issued without proper notice and violated his rights. He also challenged the dismissal of his contempt charges against GSIS. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition to be without merit, noting that the petition for certiorari before the CA was filed beyond the reglementary period and that the issuance of the writ of possession was a ministerial duty of the court following the finality of the judgment. The Court also found Mallari's actions to be dilatory tactics and a misuse of court processes, constituting misconduct as a lawyer.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner, and whether the RTC orders granting the ex parte motion for execution and writ of possession, and directing its re-implementation, were null and void. Whether the nature of the writ of possession was correctly applied. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's motions for indirect contempt against GSIS was proper. Whether the petitioner, as a lawyer, was guilty of misconduct for employing dilatory tactics.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court also directed the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate the petitioner for his conduct.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Petition for Certiorari and the RTC Orders: The Court held that the petition for certiorari filed before the CA was filed beyond the reglementary period. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration dated August 17, 2001, which was denied by the order dated February 11, 2002, was considered a prohibited second motion for reconsideration concerning the orders dated October 8, 1999, and October 21, 1999. Therefore, the assailed orders could no longer be subject to attack by certiorari, making the petition filed in March 2002 tardy. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, after the consolidation of ownership due to the mortgagor's failure to redeem, is a ministerial duty of the court. The petitioner, as a non-redeeming mortgagor, was not entitled to prior notice of the application for the writ of possession. His subsequent challenges were deemed dilatory tactics aimed at stalling the execution of a final and executory judgment. On the Nature of the Writ of Possession: The Court clarified that a writ of possession is a remedy available in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings after the redemption period has expired and ownership has consolidated in the purchaser. The issuance of such a writ becomes a ministerial function of the court, meaning it must be performed without the exercise of discretion. The petitioner, having failed to redeem the property within the one-year period from the registration of the sale, lost all interest in the property, and GSIS, as the absolute owner, became entitled to possession as a matter of right. The Court emphasized that the proceeding for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary, not requiring notice to the adverse party. On the Dismissal of Petitioner's Motion for Indirect Contempt: The Court found the dismissal of the petitioner's charges for indirect contempt to be proper. Under Section 4, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, indirect contempt proceedings initiated by a party must commence with a verified petition, not a mere motion. The petitioner failed to comply with this requirement. Moreover, even if the charges could be initiated by motion, the petitioner should have tendered the required filing fees, as contempt proceedings are considered independent special civil actions. His failure to do so meant the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the contempt charges. On Petitioner's Misconduct as a Lawyer: The Court concurred with the CA's observation that the petitioner's actions constituted dilatory tactics to stall the execution of a final and executory decision. As a lawyer, the petitioner was enjoined by Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to observe rules of procedure and not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. His conduct also breached his Lawyer's Oath by promoting groundless suits and delaying men for his own ends. The Court stressed that being a party litigant does not grant a lawyer license to resort to dilatory moves or abuse court processes. His zeal should not exceed the bounds of the law, and he remained bound to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, after the consolidation of ownership in the purchaser due to the mortgagor's failure to redeem the property within the statutory period, is a ministerial duty of the court and cannot be unduly delayed by dilatory tactics or subsequent challenges on issues already settled by final and executory judgments.