Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Serra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) sought to execute an RTC-Makati Order dated January 5, 1989, directing Federico A. Serra (Serra) to sell a parcel of land (subject property) to RCBC. During the pendency of RCBC's motion for execution, Serra mortgaged the subject property to Spouses Eduardo M. and Henedina V. Andueza (Spouses Andueza) on September 21, 2011, who subsequently annotated the mortgage. The RTC-Makati initially denied RCBC's motion for execution, but this was reversed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 203241, which ordered the RTC-Makati to issue a writ of execution and made its Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) permanent. This decision became final and executory on November 27, 2013. Procedural History: Following the Supreme Court's decision, RCBC filed a new motion for execution. Spouses Andueza, though not parties to the case, opposed the motion. The RTC-Makati granted the execution and dismissed the opposition, holding that the mortgage was inferior to RCBC's right as it was constituted when Serra no longer had ownership and free disposal of the property. This order became final. Subsequently, Spouses Andueza initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings due to Serra's default on his loan obligation. The public auction proceeded, and Spouses Andueza were the highest bidders. The RTC-Makati later granted RCBC's motion to divest Serra of his title and cancel the mortgage annotation. Despite this, Spouses Andueza obtained a writ of possession from the RTC-Masbate, leading to a Notice to Vacate served on RCBC. The Petition: RCBC filed a petition for indirect contempt against Serra and Spouses Andueza, among others, for allegedly disregarding the Supreme Court's final and executory decisions and TRO, which upheld RCBC's superior right over the subject property. RCBC argued that Serra's actions and the subsequent foreclosure by Spouses Andueza effectively allowed RCBC to be removed from the property, contravening the Court's orders.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Federico A. Serra and Spouses Eduardo and Henedina Andueza are guilty of indirect contempt of court for disregarding the Supreme Court's decisions and restraining orders. Whether the foreclosure sale of the subject property constituted a supervening event that would prevent the execution of the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. 203241, and the liability of other respondents.
Ruling
The petition is granted in part. Federico A. Serra and Spouses Eduardo and Henedina Andueza are found guilty of indirect contempt of court and ordered to pay a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00) each. The Temporary Restraining Order issued earlier is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of indirect contempt against Federico A. Serra and Spouses Andueza: The Court found Serra and Spouses Andueza guilty of indirect contempt. Serra, as a party to G.R. No. 203241, was aware of the Court's decision and the permanent TRO. By defaulting on his loan and allowing foreclosure, he permitted RCBC's removal, contravening the Court's directive. Spouses Andueza, though not parties, had actual knowledge of the TRO. Their act of instituting extrajudicial foreclosure, resulting in RCBC's removal, contravened the Court's directive. This conduct tended to impede the administration of justice. On the issue of supervening event and liability of other respondents: The Court was not convinced that a supervening event occurred. The real estate mortgage was executed while G.R. No. 203241 was pending, and Serra could not claim ignorance of a potential foreclosure. His actions were deemed intended to circumvent the Court's decision. The other respondents, including the counsels for Spouses Andueza, merely acted to protect their clients' interests or performed ministerial duties and were not found guilty of indirect contempt. The Court also lifted the TRO issued in the contempt case because RCBC had filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals involving similar issues and parties.
Main Doctrine
Respondents Federico A. Serra and Spouses Eduardo and Henedina Andueza are guilty of indirect contempt for disregarding the Court's final and executory decisions and restraining orders, thereby impeding the administration of justice. A supervening event must be established by competent evidence and must not be a foreseeable consequence of the party's own actions intended to circumvent a court's judgment.