Sombilon v. Garay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Reynaldo and Hilly G. Sombilon owned a property that was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and subsequently foreclosed. PNB emerged as the winning bidder at the public auction. After the redemption period expired without the Sombilons repurchasing the property, they sought assistance from Atty. Rey Ferdinand T. Garay to reacquire it. Atty. Garay offered to advance the purchase price, with the Sombilons promising to sell him a portion of the property in return. PNB eventually approved Atty. Garay's offer to purchase the entire property after the Sombilons failed to make the required down payment. Procedural History: Following PNB's approval of Atty. Garay's purchase offer, PNB filed an ex-parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was granted by Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr. However, upon motion by the Sombilons, Judge Venadas, Sr. issued an Order holding the implementation of the Writ of Possession in abeyance, citing potential injustice and Atty. Garay's conduct. Aggrieved, Atty. Garay and PNB filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially dismissed the petition but later reinstated it. The CA eventually granted the certiorari petition, setting aside the RTC's order to hold the writ in abeyance. Concurrently, Atty. Garay filed an administrative complaint against Judge Venadas, Sr. for grave abuse of authority and misconduct. The Petition: Spouses Sombilon filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. They argue that the CA erred in granting the certiorari petition, contending that Judge Venadas, Sr. did not commit grave abuse of discretion. They assert that the CA should have dismissed the certiorari petition due to PNB and Atty. Garay's failure to file a motion for reconsideration and that they engaged in forum-shopping. They also maintain that Judge Venadas, Sr. was correct in holding the writ in abeyance because PNB allegedly lacked the legal personality to apply for it and Atty. Garay was disqualified from purchasing the property under Article 1491 of the Civil Code. The administrative complaint against Judge Venadas, Sr. alleged gross ignorance of procedure for disregarding rules on notice and hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Venadas, Sr. committed grave abuse of discretion in holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession. Whether Judge Venadas, Sr. should be administratively sanctioned for holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession and for disregarding Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
In G.R. No. 179914, the Petition is DENIED. The June 13, 2007 Decision and the August 8, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00477-MIN are AFFIRMED. In Administrative Matter No. RTJ-06-2000, Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr. is found guilty of grave abuse of authority bordering on gross ignorance of the law and is ordered to pay a FINE of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱20,000.00) to be deducted from the withheld amount of ₱100,000.00 from his retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in holding the Writ of Possession in abeyance: The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court once the redemption period has lapsed and the title has been consolidated in the purchaser's name. The Court emphasized that questions regarding the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure sale cannot be raised to oppose or hold in abeyance the issuance of the writ, as these must be addressed in a separate action. In this case, the redemption period had lapsed, and the title was consolidated in PNB's name, making the issuance of the writ ministerial. The claim that Atty. Garay was disqualified under Article 1491 of the Civil Code did not affect PNB's right to possess the property. Therefore, Judge Venadas, Sr. committed grave abuse of discretion by holding the implementation of the writ in abeyance without legal basis. The Court also agreed that the filing of a motion for reconsideration could be dispensed with when the decision is a patent nullity or there is a violation of due process, as was the case here. On the administrative liability of Judge Venadas, Sr.: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The records showed that spouses Sombilon failed to comply with the three-day notice rule and the required proof of service under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, rendering their motion fatally defective. Despite this, Judge Venadas, Sr. took cognizance of the motion, thereby depriving PNB and Atty. Garay of their right to due process. The judge's defense that the motion was personally served but refused was unsubstantiated by an affidavit. The Court concluded that Judge Venadas, Sr. was guilty of grave abuse of authority bordering on gross ignorance of procedure for blatantly disregarding these procedural rules. Such disregard of basic rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law, a serious charge punishable under the Rules of Court. Consequently, he was fined ₱20,000.00.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession after the consolidation of title in the purchaser's name is a ministerial duty of the court. Holding its implementation in abeyance without legal basis constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, a judge who disregards basic procedural rules, such as the notice requirement under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, commits gross ignorance of procedure.