Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83101:57096&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:21:58+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 179914, June 16, 2014 - SPOUSES REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON, Petitioners, v. ATTY. REY FERDINAND GARAY AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.; A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000 - ATTY. REY FERDINAND T. GARAY, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROLANDO S. VENADAS, SR., Respondent.
SPOUSES REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON, Petitioners, v. ATTY. REY FERDINAND GARAY AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.
ATTY. REY FERDINAND T. GARAY, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROLANDO S. VENADAS, SR., Respondent.
Before us are two consolidated cases: (1) a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the June 13, 2007 Decision3 and the August 8, 2007 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00477-MIN; and (2) an Administrative Complaint5 against Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr. (Judge Venadas, Sr.) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Branch 8, for Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct.
On May 9, 2005, PNB filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession25 before the RTC of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. The case was docketed as Special Civil Case No. 375-05 and raffled to Branch 8, presided over by Judge Venadas, Sr.
On July 10, 2005, spouses Sombilon moved for a reconsideration30 of the issuance of the Writ of Possession arguing that Atty. Garay,31 who was the former counsel of Hilly, was barred from purchasing the property pursuant to paragraph 5,32 Article 1491 of the Civil Code.
Although, ordinarily a writ of possession is issued by the court because it is a mandatory and ministerial duty under Act 3135, x x x there is x x x an exception to this rule that if the implementation and enforcement of the writ of possession would work [great] injustice to the registered owner because the petitioner PNB or in this case Atty. Garay counsel for the Sombilon[s] is not entitled thereto. There is much to be said about the conduct of Atty. Garay in manipulating that the property in question was finally bought by him from the PNB not to mention the possible violation of the [canon] of legal and judicial ethics. However, the court cannot ignore the version of Mrs. Sombilon. The court will give Atty. Garay [the opportunity] to rebut the evidence presented by spouses Sombilon and he is directed to appear on August 2, 2005, at 8:30 in the morning. And if this case cannot be accommodated in the morning[,] it will proceed in the afternoon.
Send proper notice to Atty. Rey Ferdinand Garay for him to appear on said date.
In the meantime, the full implementation x x x of the Writ of Possession is hereby held in abeyance. Sheriff Claudio C. Bugahod is hereby directed to return all items to the house of Spouses Sombilon and to restore them in full possession of the property, if already implemented and enforced.
Aggrieved, Atty. Garay and PNB elevated the case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Injunction35 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Furthermore, all tenants are hereby ordered to deposit any rentals arising from the disputed property to the said Clerk of Court.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED and the assailed July 14, 2005 Order of the court a quo is hereby SET ASIDE.
Meanwhile, on November 15, 2005, Atty. Garay filed a Verified Complaint61 against Judge Venadas, Sr., charging him with Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct when he proceeded with the hearing of spouses Sombilon’s motion for reconsideration of the Order granting the issuance of the Writ of Possession despite lack of notice to PNB and for holding in abeyance the Writ of Possession he issued in Special Civil Case No. 375-05.
The issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial upon the court.
In this case, the redemption period had long lapsed when PNB applied for the issuance of the Writ of Possession. In fact, the title over the subject property had already been consolidated in PNB’s name. Thus, it was ministerial upon Judge Venadas, Sr. to issue the Writ of Possession in favor of PNB, the registered owner of the subject property.
Though there are instances when the issuance of the Writ of Possession may be deferred,81 we find none of these recognized exceptions present in the instant case. Spouses Sombilon claim that the sale between PNB and Atty. Garay was invalid as it was done in violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code. However, the alleged invalidity of the sale is not a ground to oppose or defer the issuance of the Writ of Possession as this does not affect PNB’s right to possess the subject property. Thus, there was no reason for Judge Venadas, Sr. to hold in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession. Clearly, he committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Order holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession because PNB, as the registered owner, is entitled to the possession of the subject property as a matter of right.
Regarding the failure of PNB and Atty. Garay to move for a reconsideration of the assailed Order prior to the availment of a special civil action for certiorari, we agree with PNB that the filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with where the decision is a patent nullity or where there is violation of due process,82 such as in the instant case.
All told, we find no error on the part of the CA in granting the Petition for Certiorari.
As to the Administrative Complaint filed against Judge Venadas, Sr., we agree with the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
Records show that spouses Sombilon failed to comply with the three-day notice rule and the required proof of service embodied in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, thereby rendering the motion fatally defective. Despite this, Judge Venadas, Sr. still took cognizance of the motion filed by spouses Sombilon, depriving PNB and Atty. Garay of their right to due process.
To exculpate himself from the charges against him, Judge Venadas, Sr. claims that the motion was personally served on PNB and its counsel on July 12, 2005 but they refused to receive the same. However, as aptly pointed out by the OCA, no affidavit was submitted to substantiate such allegation. Thus, we agree with the Court Administrator that Judge Venadas, Sr. is guilty of grave abuse of authority bordering on gross ignorance of procedure for blatantly disregarding Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, in G.R. No. 179914, the Petition is hereby 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 hereby AFFIRMED.
In Administrative Matter No. RTJ-06-2000, Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr. of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Branch 8, is hereby 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 (P20,000.00) to be deducted from the withheld amount of P100,000.00 from his retirement benefits pursuant to the April 18, 2007 Resolution in A.M. No. 12600-Ret.
* Per Special Order No. 1699 dated June 13, 2014.
** Per Special Order No. 1696 dated June 13, 2014.
1Fr. Guillen v. Judge Cañon, 424 Phil. 81, 88-89 (2002).
2Rollo, G.R. No. 179914, pp. 3-27.
3 CA rollo, pp. 427-435; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Michael P. Elbinias.
5Rollo, A. M. No. RTJ-06-2000, pp. 2-11.
6 CA rollo, p. 428.
11 Spouses Sombilon entered into a Contract of Lease with PNB in order to have continuous use of the property. Id. at 153-158 and 288.
12Rollo, G.R. No. 179914, p. 6.
13 CA rollo, pp. 428-429.
16Rollo, G.R. No. 179914, p. 210. In the CA Decision, the amount stated is P587,000.00.
17 CA rollo, p. 429.
18Rollo, G.R. No. 179914, pp. 7-8.
19 PNB’s total claim of P4.9 million was reduced by its Asset Management Group to P4.425 million. Id. at 210.
20 CA rollo, p. 429.
23Rollo, G.R. No. 179914, p. 210.
24 Spouses Sombilon only made a down payment of P300,000.00, which is less than the 10% down payment required by PNB. Id. at 8 and 42.
28 CA rollo, pp. 429-430.
30Rollo, G.R. No. 179914, pp. 51-59.
31 On July 22, 2005, a Deed of Sale was executed by PNB in favor of Atty. Garay. Id. at 210.
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
33Rollo, G.R. No. 179914, pp. 60-61.
35 CA rollo, pp. 2-7.
36 Id. at 30-31; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Normandie B. Pizarro.
Petitioners failed to avail of the plain, speedy and adequate remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration before availing of the extra-ordinary remedy of certiorari .
Even if We were to overlook these formal and substantial errors, We are nonetheless constrained to dismiss the petition for the most elemental of reasons – there is no private respondent named in the present petition. Id. at 31.
40 Id. at 318-320; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Antonio L. Villamor.
42 Id. at 427-435; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Michael P. Elbinias.
47Rollo, G.R. No. 179914, p. 14.
61Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000, pp. 2-11.
62 Id. at 3-6 and 8-10.
63 SEC. 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
64 SEC. 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
65 SEC. 6. Proof of service necessary. — No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.
66Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000, pp. 6-10.
74Rollo, G.R. No. 179914, p. 161.
75Sps. Landrito, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 503 Phil. 723, 732-733 (2005).
Sec. 7. Possession during redemption period. — In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of the court shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, as amended by Act Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately.
77Nagtalon v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 172504, July 31, 2013, 702 SCRA 615, 624.
79Tolosa v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 183058, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 138, 148.
81Cometa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 235 Phil. 569 (1987); Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 245 Phil. 316 (1988); and Sulit v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 914 (1997).
82Philippine National Construction Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 354 Phil. 274, 281 (1998).
83Lilia v. Judge Fanuñal, 423 Phil. 443, 451 (2001); Ogka Benito v. Judge Balindong, 599 Phil. 196, 201 (2009).
84Atty. Gomos v. Judge Adiong, 484 Phil. 116, 126-127; Sec. 11, Rule 140, Rules of Court.
85Application for Disability Retirement under R.A. No. 910 as amended by RA 5095 and PD 1438 of Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Malaybalay, Bukidnon.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.