ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 181298 : January 10, 2011 BELLE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 176339 : January 10, 2011 DO-ALL METALS INDUSTRIES, INC., SPS. DOMINGO LIM and LELY KUNG LIM, Petitioners, v. SECURITY BANK CORP., TITOLAIDO E. PAYONGAYONG, EVYLENE C. SISON, PHIL. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY CORP. and GIL SILOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188792 : January 10, 2011 SPOUSES GEORGE R. TAN and SUSAN L. TAN, Petitioners, v. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., Respondent. G.R. Nos. 190677-78 : January 10, 2011 GEORGE R. TAN and SUSAN L. TAN, Petitioners, v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, Respondent. G.R. Nos. 190699-700 : January 10, 2011 BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. GEORGE R. TAN and SUSAN L. TAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011 ELENITA C. FAJARDO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180452 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ng Yik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng, Chang Chaun Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan Shun Min, and RaymOnd S. Tan, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 171379 : January 10, 2011 JOSE MARQUES and MAXILITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioners, v. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, FAR EAST BANK INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., and MAKATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. G.R. No. 171419 : January 10, 2011 FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY and MAKATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. JOSE MARQUES and MAXILITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181930 : January 10, 2011 MILAGROS SALTING, Petitioner, v. JOHN VELEZ and CLARISSA R. VELEZ, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2188 (Formerly A.M. OCA-IPI No. 08-2995-RTJ) : January 10, 2011 PROSECUTOR HILARIO RONSON H. TILAN, Complainant, v. JUDGE ESTER PISCOSO-FLOR, RTC, BRANCH 34, BANAUE, IFUGAO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184954 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. JAY LORENA y LABAG, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 190122 : January 10, 2011 SPOUSES ISAGANI and DIOSDADA CASTRO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES REGINO SE and VIOLETA DELA CRUZ, SPOUSES EDUARDO and CHARITO PEREZ and MARCELINO TOLENTINO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188314 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KHADDAFY JANJALANI, GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, GAPPAL BANNAH ASALI a.k.a. Maidan or Negro, JAINAL SALI a.k.a. Abu Solaiman, ROHMAT ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Jackie or Zaky, and other JOHN and JANE DOES, Accused, GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and ROHMAT ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 178895 : January 10, 2011 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner, v. SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Respondent. G.R. No. 179071 : January 10, 2011 SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the Honorable Secretary, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179446 : January 10, 2011 LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. GLODEL BROKERAGE CORPORATION AND R&B INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182547 : January 10, 2011 CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ARMI S. ABEL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168646 : January 12, 2011 LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, Petitioner, v. ANGELES CATHERINE ENRIQUEZ, Respondent. G.R. No. 168666 : January 12, 2011 DELTA DEVELOPMENT and MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. ANGELES CATHERINE ENRIQUEZ and LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 167291 : January 12, 2011 PRINCE TRANSPORT, INC. and MR. RENATO CLAROS, Petitioners, v. DIOSDADO GARCIA, LUISITO GARCIA, RODANTE ROMERO, REX BARTOLOME, FELICIANO GASCO, JR., DANILO ROJO, EDGAR SANFUEGO, AMADO GALANTO, EUTIQUIO LUGTU, JOEL GRAMATICA, MIEL CERVANTES, TERESITA CABANES, ROE DELA CRUZ, RICHELO BALIDOY, VILMA PORRAS, MIGUELITO SALCEDO, CRISTINA GARCIA, MARIO NAZARENO, DINDO TORRES, ESMAEL RAMBOYONG, ROBETO* MANO, ROGELIO BAGAWISAN, ARIEL SNACHEZ, ESTAQULO VILLAREAL, NELSON MONTERO, GLORIA ORANTE, HARRY TOCA, PABLITO MACASAET and RONALD GARCITA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172508 : January 12, 2011 HEIRS OF SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA, Petitioner, v. HON. J. CEDRICK O. RUIZ, Presiding Judge, Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City; GERRY D. SUMACULUB, as Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court; BOMBO RADYO HOLDINGS, INC., and ROGELIO M. FLORETE, SR., Respondents

  • G.R. No. 178296 : January 12, 2011 THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its owner, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179419 : January 12, 2011 DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style of City Garden Hotel, Petitioner, v. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. NO. 189806 : January 12, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO MANLANGIT y TRESBALLES, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191721 : January 12, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y ESTRADA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 175330 : January 12, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RODOLFO CAPITLE and ARTURO NAGARES, Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 175891 : January 12, 2011 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RESINS, INCORPORATED, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 176019 : January 12, 2011 BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. GOLDEN POWER DIESEL SALES CENTER, INC. and RENATO C. TAN, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2696 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2956-P] : January 12, 2011 FREDDY H. REYES, Complainant, v. VIVIAN L. PABILANE, COURT INTERPRETER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, TAGKAWAYAN, QUEZON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190640 : January 12, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. LUIS PAJARIN y DELA CRUZ and EFREN PALLAYA y TUVIERA, Appellants.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2179 (Formerly A.M. No. 06-5-169-MCTC) : January 12, 2011 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MERLINDA T. CUACHON, Clerk of Court, and FE P. ALEJANO, Court Stenographer, both of the MCTC, Ilog-Candoni, Negros Occidental, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 8620 : January 12, 2011 JESSIE R. DE LEON, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190521 : January 12, 2011 LETICIA TAN, MYRNA MEDINA, MARILOU SPOONER, ROSALINDA TAN, and MARY JANE TAN, MARY LYN TAN, CELEDONIO TAN, JR., MARY JOY TAN, and MARK ALLAN TAN, represented herein by their mother, LETICIA TAN, Petitioners, v. OMC CARRIERS, INC. and BONIFACIO ARAMBALA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 148076 : January 12, 2011 ANTONIO M. CARANDANG, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondent. G.R. No. 153161 : January 12, 2011 ANTONIO M. CARANDANG, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 172378: January 17, 2011 SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC., (Formerly INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.), Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185163 : January 17, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLO MAGNO AURE y ARNALDO and MELCHOR AUSTRIACO y AGUILA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 176389 : January 18, 2011 ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 176864 : January 18, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO BIONG, Appellants.

  • CONCURRING OPINION : SERENO, J. : G.R. No. 176389 : January 18, 2011 ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 176864 : January 18, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO BIONG, Appellants.

  • A.M. No. P-10-2788 : January 18, 2011 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. CLAUDIO M. LOPEZ, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court, Sudipen, La Union, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2198*: January 18, 2011 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. FORMER JUDGE LEONARDO L. LEONIDA, OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 27, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180388 : January 18, 2011 GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), DPWH UNDERSECRETARIES TEODORO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO V. MIR, DPWH ASSISTANT SECRETARY JOEL L. ALTEA, DPWH REGIONAL DIRECTOR VICENTE B. LOPEZ, DPWH DISTRICT ENGINEER ANGELITO M. TWAÑO, FELIX A. DESIERTO OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP VALIDATION AND AUDITING TEAM, AND LEONARDO ALVARO, ROMEO N. SUPAN, VICTORINO C. SANTOS OF THE DPWH PAMPANGA 2ND ENGINEERING DISTRICT, Petitioners, v. ARNULFO D. AQUINO , Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182591 : January 18, 2011 MODESTO AGYAO, JR., Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 165423: January 19, 2011 NILO PADRE, Petitioner, v. FRUCTOSA BADILLO, FEDILA BADILLO, PRESENTACION CABALLES, EDWINA VICARIO (d) represented by MARY JOY VICARIO-ORBETA and NELSON BADILLO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 168757: January 19, 2011 RENATO REAL, Petitioner, v. SANGU PHILIPPINES, INC. and/ or KIICHI ABE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172577 : January 19, 2011 SOLEDAD DALTON, Petitioner, v. FGR REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FELIX NG, NENITA NG, and FLORA R. DAYRIT or FLORA REGNER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173085 : January 19, 2011 PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES , ARMANDO SIMBILLO, CHRISTIAN MARCELO, ROLANDO DAVID, RICARDO BUCUD, PABLO SANTOS, AGRIFINA ENRIQUEZ, CONRADO ESPELETA, CATGERUBE CASTRO, CARLITO MERCADO and ALFREDO SUAREZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178044 : January 19, 2011 ALAIN M. DIÑO, Petitioner, v. MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177937 : January 19, 2011 ROBINSONS GALLERIA/ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET CORPORATION and/or JESS MANUEL, Petitioners, v. IRENE R. RANCHEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187725 : January 19, 2011 BENJAMIN JESALVA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187917 : January 19, 2011 METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDMUNDO MIRANDA and JULIE MIRANDA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 176264 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TERESITA "TESSIE" LAOGO, APPELLANT.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J : January 11, 2011 RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON C. CAYETUNA, ET AL., ALL EMPLOYEES OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS, CA - MINDANAO STATION

  • G.R. No. 176264 : January 10, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TERESITA "TESSIE" LAOGO, APPELLANT.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J : January 11, 2011 RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON C. CAYETUNA, ET AL., ALL EMPLOYEES OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS, CA - MINDANAO STATION

  • A.M. No. 08-4-253-RTC : January 12, 2011 IN RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN, AND REPORT ON THE INCIDENT AT BRANCH 49, SAME COURT.

  • G.R. No. 178741 : January 17, 2011 ROSALINO L. MARABLE, PETITIONER, VS. MYRNA F. MARABLE, RESPONDENT.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3335-RTJ) : January 17, 2011 SPOUSES DEMOCRITO AND OLIVIA LAGO, COMPLAINANTS, UDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, GINGOOG CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • G. R. No. 177790 : January 17, 2011 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CARLOS R. VEGA, MARCOS R. VEGA, ROGELIO R. VEGA, LUBIN R. VEGA, HEIRS OF GLORIA R. VEGA, NAMELY: FRACISCO L. YAP, MA. WINONA Y. RODRIGUEZ, MA. WENDELYN V. YAP AND FRANCISCO V. YAP, JR., RESPONDENTS, ROMEA G. BUHAY-OCAMPO, FRANCISCO G. BUHAY, ARCELI G. BUHAY-RODRIGUEZ, ORLANDO G. BUHAY, SOLEDAD G. BUHAY-VASQUEZ, LOIDA G. BUHAY-SENADOSA, FLORENDO G. BUHAY, OSCAR G. BUHAY, ERLYN BUHAY-GINORGA, EVELYN BUHAY-GRANETA, AND EMILIE BUHAY-DALLAS, RESPONDENTS-INTERVENORS.

  • G.R. No. 191459 : January 17, 2011 BERNADETH LONDONIO AND JOAN CORCORO, PETITIONERS, VS. BIO RESEARCH, INC. AND WILSON Y. ANG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2173 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3084-RTJ) : January 18, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE BENJAMIN P. ESTRADA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, AND JUDGE JOSEFINA GENTILES-BACAL, RTC, BRANCH 10, MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. P-03-1730 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 02-1469-P) : January 18, 2011] JUDGE PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE, MARTIN GUMARANG, VIC JUMALON, LEONARDO LUCAS, WILFREDO DEUS, CORAZON AZARRAGA AND ALICE BUENAFE, Complainants, v. OIC BRANCH CLERK OF COURT BABE SJ. RAMIREZ, CLERK VIOLETA P. FLORDELIZA AND SHERIFF IV CARLOS A. SALVADOR, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2062* : January 18, 2011] IMELDA R. MARCOS, Complainant, v. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2198* : January 18, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. FORMER JUDGE LEONARDO L. LEONIDA, OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 27, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, Respondent

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2887 (Formerly A.M. No. 09-2-32-MTCRe: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of the Municipal Trial Court, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija) : January 18, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MARISSA U. ANGELES,CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PANTABANGAN, NUEVA ECIJA, Respondent [A.M. NO. P-10-2880 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 08-2782-P) : January 18, 2011] JUDGE ANALIE C. ALDEA-AROCENA, Complainant, v. MARISSA U. ANGELES, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PANTABANGAN NUEVA ECIJA, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. 07-6-14-CA : January 18, 2011] RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER RELATIVE TO THE ALLEGED CORRUPTION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2799 : January 18, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. VICTORIO A. DION, FORMER CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, SAN FABIAN-SAN JACINTO, PANGASINAN, Respondents

  • [G. R. No. 175352 : January 18, 2011] DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO AND SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petitioners, v. RICHARD J. GORDON, Respondent. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS, Intervenor

  • [G. R. No. 175352 : January 18, 2011] : CONCURRING OPINION - ABAD, J.: DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO AND SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petitioners, v. RICHARD J. GORDON, Respondent. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS, Intervenor.

  • [G. R. No. 175352 : January 18, 2011] : DISSENTING OPINION - CARPIO, J.: DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO AND SALVADOR M. VIARI, Petitioners, v. RICHARD J. GORDON, Respondent. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RED CROSS, Intervenor.

  • [G.R. No. 179617 : January 19, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 187917 : January 19, 2011] METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDMUNDO MIRANDA AND JULIE MIRANDA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 187725 : January 19, 2011] BENJAMIN JESALVA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 173085 : January 19, 2011] PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ARMANDO SIMBILLO, CHRISTIAN MARCELO, ROLANDO DAVID, RICARDO BUCUD, PABLO SANTOS, AGRIFINA ENRIQUEZ, CONRADO ESPELETA, CATGERUBE CASTRO, CARLITO MERCADO AND ALFREDO SUAREZ, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 07-1933-MTJ] : January 19, 2011] FLORENDA V. TOBIAS, Complainant, v. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, VALLADOLID-SAN ENRIQUE-PULUPANDAN, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 165423 : January 19, 2011] NILO PADRE, Petitioner, v. FRUCTOSA BADILLO, FEDILA BADILLO, PRESENTACION CABALLES, EDWINA VICARIO (D) REPRESENTED BY MARY JOY VICARIO-ORBETA AND NELSON BADILLO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 154462 : January 19, 2011] SPOUSES RUBEN AND MYRNA LEYNES, Petitioners, v. FORMER TENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, BANSALAN, DAVAO DEL SUR, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 1, BANSALAN, DAVAO DEL SUR, AND SPOUSES GUALBERTO & RENE CABAHUG-SUPERALES, Respondents.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2267 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1788-RTJ) : January 19, 2011] MANSUETA T. RUBIN, Complainant, v. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, HIMAMAYLAN, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 185715 : January 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 177570 : January 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NELIDA DEQUINA Y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC Y JAPITANA & NORA JINGABO Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 183843 : January 19, 2011] GOLDEN ARCHES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 180909 : January 19, 2011] EXXONMOBIL PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL HOLDINGS, INC. - PHILIPPINE BRANCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 178039 : January 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO UYBOCO Y RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 184063 : January 24, 2011] CYNTHIA E. YAMBAO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PATRICIO E. YAMBAO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 176438 : January 24, 2011] PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC), Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, INC., RURAL BANK OF CARMEN (CEBU), INC., BANK OF EAST ASIA (MINGLANILLA, CEBU) INC., AND PILIPINO RURAL BANK (CEBU), INC., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 160923 : January 24, 2011] MOISES TINIO, JR. AND FRANCIS TINIO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Respondent. [G.R. NO. 161093 : January 24, 2011] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MOISES TINIO, JR. AND FRANCIS TINIO, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 169942 : January 24, 2011] BARANGAY DASMARIÑAS THRU BARANGAY CAPTAIN MA. ENCARNACION R. LEGASPI, Petitioner, v.CREATIVE PLAY CORNER SCHOOL, DR. AMADO J. PIAMONTE, REGINA PIAMONTE TAMBUNTING, CELINE CONCEPCION LEBRON AND CECILE CUNA COLINA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 172804 : January 24, 2011] GONZALO VILLANUEVA, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES FROILAN AND LEONILA BRANOCO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 192280 : January 25, 2011] SERGIO G. AMORA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARNIELO S. OLANDRIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2364 : January 25, 2011] REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SONIA L. DY AND ATTY. GRACIANO D. CUANICO, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CATARMAN, NORTHERN SAMAR. A.M. NO. P-11-2902 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 08-2790-P) VIRGILIO O. GALLANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GRACIANO D. CUANICO, JR., CLERK OF COURT, AND SONIA L. DY, SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER II, BOTH FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,CATARMAN, NORTHERN SAMAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167622 : January 25, 2011] GREGORIO V. TONGKO, PETITIONER, VS. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. (PHILS.), INC. AND RENATO A. VERGEL DE DIOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-90-488 : January 25, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSE M. RAMANO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 140, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191198 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187320 : January 26, 2011] ATLANTA INDUSTRIES, INC. AND/OR ROBERT CHAN, PETITIONERS, VS. APRILITO R. SEBOLINO, KHIM V. COSTALES, ALVIN V. ALMOITE, AND JOSEPH S. SAGUN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186528 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HEMIANO DE JESUS AND RODELO MORALES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184202 : January 26, 2011] AQUINAS SCHOOL, PETITIONER, VS. CARPIO, J., CHAIRPERSON, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, AND MENDOZA, JJ. SPS. JOSE INTON AND MA. VICTORIA S. INTON, ON THEIR BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILD, JOSE LUIS S. INTON, AND SR. MARGARITA YAMYAMIN, OP, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181833 : January 26, 2011] INTERNATIONAL FREEPORT TRADERS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DANZAS INTERCONTINENTAL, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181146 : January 26, 2011] THE UNIVERSITY OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND MO. MARIA ASSUMPTA DAVID, RVM, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND TEODORA AXALAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192237 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JACQUILINE PAMBID Y CORTEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179428 : January 26, 2011] PRIMO E. CAONG, JR., ALEXANDER J. TRESQUIO, AND LORIANO D. DALUYON, PETITIONERS, VS. AVELINO REGUALOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 159471 : January 26, 2011] ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167459 : January 26, 2011] JOSE REYNALDO B. OCHOSA, PETITIONER, VS. BONA J. ALANO AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2627 : January 26, 2011] REINA EDENLYNE GARCIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROBERT V. ALEJO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 142, MAKATI CITY RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2817 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.09-3089-P] : January 26, 2011] CORAZON TENORIO, REPRESENTED BY IMELDA TENORIO-ORTIZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALYN C. PERLAS, SHERIFF III,RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185166 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177685 : January 26, 2011] HEIRS OF RAMON C. GAITE, CYNTHIA GOROSTIZA GAITE AND RHOGEN BUILDERS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE PLAZA, INC. AND FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176819 : January 26, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ROBERT P. BALAO, JOSEPHINE C. ANGSICO, VIRGILIO V. DACALOS, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 174725 : January 26, 2011] ALEXANDER B. GATUS, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 172224 : January 26, 2011] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND DINAH C. BARRIGA, Respondents.

  • IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, MANUEL MIGUEL PALAGANAS AND BENJAMIN GREGORIO PALAGANAS, Petitioners, v. ERNESTO PALAGANAS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 184091 : January 31, 2011] EDWARD GARRICK VILLENA AND PERCIVAL DOROJA, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, NOMAR B. DEGERON, CHRISTIAN DANDAN, AND ELIZABETH BORCELIS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 182301 : January 31, 2011] JAIME ALFEREZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PINGPING CO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 188847 : January 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUFINO VICENTE, JR. Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175404 : January 31, 2011] CARGILL PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SAN FERNANDO REGALA TRADING, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 187912-14 : January 31, 2011] JOEY P. MARQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN 5TH DIVISION AND THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176287 : January 31, 2011] HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. - MEDICAL CENTER MANILA, PETITIONER, VS. HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. - MEDICAL CENTER MANILA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW AND EDNA R. DE CASTRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270 [FORMERLY A.M. NO. OCA IPI NO. 10-3380-RTJ] : January 31, 2011] ELADIO D. PERFECTO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, CATARMAN, NORTHERN SAMAR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185685 : January 31, 2011] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. NIETO A. RACHO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191889 : January 31, 2011] SPS. IRENEO T. FERNANDO (SUBSTITUTED BY THEIR HEIRS, RONALDO M. FERNANDO, CONCORDIA FERNANDO-JAYME, ESMERALDA M. FERNANDO, ANTONETTE M. FERNANDO-REGONDOLA, FERDINAND M. FERNANDO, AND JEAN MARIE FERNANDO-CANSANAY), AND MONSERRAT MAGSALIN FERNANDO, PETITIONERS, VS. MARCELINO T. FERNANDO, RESPONDENT. MATIAS I. FERNANDO AND PANFILO M. FERNANDO,[1] IN THEIR CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATORS [OF THE ESTATE] OF THE LATE JULIANA T. FERNANDO, RESPONDENTS-INTERVENORS.

  • [G.R. No. 175473 : January 31, 2011] HILARIO P. SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MARIA THERESA V. MENDOZA-ARCEGA, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 17, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS, BULACAN; AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181039 : January 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. SEVILLANO DELOS REYES Y LANTICAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185535 : January 31, 2011] MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. REYNALDO (REYMUNDO[1]) AVILA, CALIXTO AGUIRRE, AND SPS. ROLANDO AND ANGELITA QUILANG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180013 : January 31, 2011] DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES INC. EMPLOYEES AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE (DEARBC), PETITIONER, VS. JESUS SANGUNAY AND SONNY LABUNOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179961 : January 31, 2011] KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192898 : January 31, 2011] SPOUSES ALEXANDER TRINIDAD AND CECILIA TRINIDAD, PETITIONERS, VS. VICTOR ANG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168501 : January 31, 2011] ISLRIZ TRADING/ VICTOR HUGO LU, PETITIONER, VS. EFREN CAPADA, LAURO LICUP, NORBERTO NIGOS, RONNIE ABEL, GODOFREDO MAGNAYE, ARNEL SIBERRE, EDMUNDO CAPADA, NOMERLITO MAGNAYE AND ALBERTO DELA VEGA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186120 : January 31, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EVANGELINE SOBANGEE Y EDAÑO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190889 : January 10, 2011] ELENITA C. FAJARDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2189 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2837-RTJ) : January 18, 2011] VICTORIANO SY,COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE OSCAR E. DINOPOL, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, KORONADAL CITY, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N

  •  





     
     

    [G.R. No. 187917 : January 19, 2011]   METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDMUNDO MIRANDA AND JULIE MIRANDA, Respondents.

     
    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 187917 : January 19, 2011]

    METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDMUNDO MIRANDA AND JULIE MIRANDA, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N

     

    NACHURA, J.:

     

    On appeal is the June 30, 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87775, affirming the June 16, 2006 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Branch 35, as well as its subsequent Resolution dated May 7, 2009,[3] denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.cralawlibrary

    Respondents, spouses Edmundo Miranda and Julie Miranda, applied for and obtained a credit accommodation from petitioner Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank).   On August 27, 1996, respondents obtained a P4,000,000.00 loan from Metrobank and executed a real estate mortgage[4] over a parcel of land in Poblacion, Santiago, Isabela, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 202288. Upon respondents' request, Metrobank increased the loan from P4,000,000.00 to P5,000,000.00.  The real estate mortgage executed on August 27, 1996 was thus amended[5] to increase the principal amount of loan secured by the mortgage to P5,000,000.00.cralawlibrary

    Subsequently, respondents obtained additional loans from Metrobank - P1,000,000.00 on  December 3, 1996, and P1,000,000.00 on May 8, 1997. The additional loans were secured by mortgage[6] over lands situated in Dubinan and Mabini, Santiago, Isabela, covered by TCT Nos. T-202288, T-180503, T-260279, and T-272664.cralawlibrary

    Respondents encountered difficulties in paying their loans. They requested for a longer period to settle their account and further requested for the restructuring of their loans, which requests Metrobank granted.  Respondents then signed Promissory Note (PN) No. 599773[7] for P6,400,000.00, and PN No. 599772[8] for P950,000.00, both payable on February 24, 2002, with interest at 17.250% per annum. They also amended the deeds of real estate mortgage they executed in favor of Metrobank to increase the amount of loans secured by mortgage to P6,350,000.00.  The amendment was inscribed on TCT Nos. T-202288,[9] T-260279,[10] and T-180503.[11]

    On August 25, 2000, Metrobank sent respondents a demand letter[12] to settle their overdue account of P8,512,380.15, inclusive of interest and penalties; otherwise, the bank would initiate "the necessary legal proceedings x x x, without further notice." Respondents, however, failed to settle their account.   Consequently, Metrobank caused the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale of the mortgaged properties on November 16, 2000. The Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of Santiago City sold the mortgaged properties at public auction for the sum of P9,284,452.00 to Metrobank, as the highest bidder.  A Certificate of Sale[13] was issued in favor of Metrobank on November 27, 2000, which was registered with the Registry of Deeds on November 29, 2000.cralawlibrary

    Claiming that the extrajudicial foreclosure was void, respondents filed a complaint for Nullification of the Foreclosure Proceedings and Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction[14] with the RTC of Santiago City.  They alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1079[15] and Act No. 3135,[16] particularly the publication requirement. Respondents further asserted that Metrobank required them to sign blank promissory notes and real estate mortgage, and that they were not furnished with copies of these documents.  Later, they discovered that the terms and conditions of the promissory notes and of the mortgage were entirely different from what was represented to them  by  the  bank.   The right  to  fix  the  interest  rates,  they  added,  was
    exclusively given to the bank.  Respondents, thus, prayed for the annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.cralawlibrary

    Metrobank answered the complaint, denying its material allegations and asserting the validity of the foreclosure proceedings. Specifically, it averred compliance with the posting and publication requirements.  Thus, it prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.[17]

    Meanwhile, on December 20, 2001, Metrobank caused the cancellation of the TCTs in the name of respondents and the issuance of new ones in its name.  On December 21, 2001, the Ex-Officio Sheriff executed a Final Deed of Sale.[18]

    On June 16, 2006, the RTC rendered a decision[19] annulling the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. The RTC reviewed the records of the foreclosure proceedings and found no proof of publication of the sheriff's notice of sale; there was no affidavit of publication attached to the records.  This fatal defect, it held, invalidated the auction sale and the entire foreclosure proceedings.  The RTC further held that, when Metrobank foreclosed the mortgaged properties, respondents' loan account was still outstanding for there was an overpayment of interests amounting to P1,529,922.00.  Thus, the foreclosure proceedings were without factual and legal basis.  The RTC further noted that Metrobank consolidated its title even before the issuance of the sheriff's Final Deed of Sale.  The trial court considered it an irregularity sufficient to invalidate the consolidation.cralawlibrary

    The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [respondents] and against [petitioner] Metrobank as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    1)      DECLARING as null and void the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale, dated November 27, 2000, Exhibit "11";

    2)      DECLARING as null and void the Sheriff's Final Deed of Sale, dated December 21, 2000, Exhibit "12";

    3)      CANCELLING [Metrobank's] TCT Nos. T-319236 (Exhibit "13"); T-319235 over Lot 6-B-18 (Exhibit "14"); T-T-319235 over Lot 4-F (Exhibit "15"); and T-319237 (Exhibit "16");

    4)      RESTORING [respondents'] TCT Nos. T-260279 (Exhibit      "E"); T-202288 (Exhibit "F"); T-180503 (Exhibit "G"; and T- 272664 (Annex "E"); and

    5)      ORDERING x x x Metrobank to pay PHP50,000.00 as attorney's fees, and the cost of suit.cralawlibrary

    SO ORDERED. [20]

    Metrobank filed a motion for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it on July 31, 2006.cralawlibrary

    Metrobank then appealed to the CA, faulting the RTC for annulling the foreclosure proceedings.  It insisted that the bank complied with the publication requirement.  Metrobank also disagreed with the trial court's finding of overpayment of interests amounting to P1,529,922.00, claiming that the applicable interest rates on respondents' loans were 17% and not 12% as computed by the trial court.  It further asserted that a final deed of sale is not necessary for purposes of consolidating its ownership over the subject properties.  Finally, Metrobank assailed the award of attorney's fees for lack of basis.cralawlibrary

    On June 30, 2008, the CA resolved Metrobank's appeal in this wise:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED.  The assailed decision dated June 16, 2006 of the RTC of Santiago City, Branch 35, in Civil Case No. 35-3022 is AFFIRMED.cralawlibrary

    SO ORDERED.[21]

    Metrobank's motion for reconsideration also suffered the same fate, as the CA denied it on May 7, 2009.[22]

    Before us, Metrobank insists on the validity of the foreclosure proceedings. Essentially, it argues that foreclosure proceedings enjoy the presumption of regularity, and the party alleging irregularity has the burden of proving his claim.  Metrobank asserts that, in this case, the presumption of regularity was not disputed because respondents failed to prove that the notice of sale was not published as required by law.cralawlibrary

    At the outset, it must be stated that only questions of law may be raised before this Court in a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not the function of this Court to reexamine the evidence submitted by the parties.[23]

    It has been our consistent ruling that the question of compliance or non-compliance with notice and publication requirements of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is a factual issue, and the resolution thereof by the trial court is generally binding on this Court.  The matter of sufficiency of posting  and  publication of a notice of foreclosure sale need not be resolved

    by this Court, especially when the findings of the RTC were sustained by the CA. Well-established is the rule that factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[24]

    The unanimity of the CA and the trial court in their factual ascertainment that there was non-compliance with the publication requirement bars us from supplanting their findings and substituting them with our own.Metrobank has not shown that they are entitled to an exception to this rule. It has not sufficiently demonstrated any special circumstances to justify a factual review.cralawlibrary

    Metrobank makes much ado of respondents' failure to present proof of non-compliance with the publication requirement.  It insists that respondents failed to discharge the requisite burden of proof.cralawlibrary

    Apparently, Metrobank lost sight of our ruling in Spouses Pulido v. CA,[25] Sempio v. CA,[26] and, recently, in Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Dionisio Geronimo and Caridad Geronimo,[27] viz.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    While it may be true that the party alleging non-compliance with the requisite publication has the burden of proof, still negative allegations need not be proved even if essential to one's cause of action or defense if they constitute a denial of the existence of a document the custody of which belongs to the other party.

    It would have been a simple matter for Metrobank to rebut the allegation of non-compliance by producing the required proof of publication.  Yet, Metrobank opted not to rebut the allegation; it simply relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.cralawlibrary

    Unfortunately, Metrobank's reliance on the presumption of regularity must fail because it did not present any proof of publication of the notice of sale.  As held by this Court in Spouses Pulido v. Court of Appeals:[28]

    [P]etitioners' reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties falls in the face of a serious imputation on non-compliance. The presumption of compliance with official duty is rebutted by failure to present proof of posting.

    Further, in Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Dionisio Geronimo and Caridad Geronimo,[29] this Court rejected a similar contention, viz.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Petitioner's invocation of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty on the part of Sheriff Castillo is misplaced. While posting the notice of sale is part of a sheriff's official functions, the actual publication of the notice of sale cannot be considered as such, since this concerns the publisher's business. Simply put, the sheriff is incompetent to prove that the notice of sale was actually published in a newspaper of general circulation.
    As correctly found by the RTC and the CA, the records[30] of the foreclosure proceedings lacked any proof of publication. This explains why Metrobank could not present any proof of publication.cralawlibrary

    We take this occasion to reiterate that the object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place, and terms of the sale. Notices are given for the purpose of  securing  bidders  and preventing a sacrifice sale of the property.cralawlibrary

    The goal of the notice requirement is to achieve a "reasonably wide publicity" of the auction sale.  This is why publication in a newspaper of general circulation is required. The Court has previously taken judicial notice of the "far-reaching effects" of publishing the notice of sale in a newspaper of general circulation.  Thus, the publication of the notice of sale was held essential to the validity of foreclosure proceedings.[31] In this case, Metrobank failed to establish compliance with the publication requirement.  The RTC and the CA cannot, therefore, be faulted for nullifying the foreclosure proceedings.cralawlibrary

    Metrobank next questions the authority of the RTC and the CA to take cognizance of the records of the foreclosure proceedings as basis for annulling the auction sale. It claims that the trial court may not take judicial notice of the records of proceedings in another case, unless the parties themselves agreed to it.  Metrobank asserts that it did not give its consent to the trial court's examination of the records of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.  Further, the RTC did not even set a hearing for the purpose of declaring its intention to take judicial notice of the records of the extrajudicial proceedings, as required by Section 3[32] of Rule 129.  Metrobank, thus, contends that the RTC exceeded its authority in taking cognizance of the records of the extrajudicial proceedings.cralawlibrary

    We disagree.cralawlibrary

    As a rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. This rule, however, is not absolute.cralawlibrary

    In Juaban v. Espina[33] and  "G" Holdings, Inc. v. National Mines and Allied Workers Union Local 103 (NAMAWU),[34] we held that, in some instances, courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases may be so closely interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice.cralawlibrary

    The RTC, therefore, acted well within its authority in taking cognizance of the records of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, and the CA cannot be faulted for sustaining the RTC.cralawlibrary

    Metrobank further questions the trial court's finding of overpayment of interests. But like the issue on compliance with the publication requirement, the issue on overpayment of interests involves the ascertainment of facts not subject of review by this Court. We reiterate that our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, the latter's findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.[35]

    Besides, we find nothing erroneous in this factual finding of the RTC.  As explained by the RTC in its decision:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    [T]he Court notes that the original promissory notes evidencing the various loans of the plaintiffs were not presented in court by either party; they are needed to determine the stipulated interest rate.  The Court is thus left to determine the same based on the testimony of the plaintiffs that the agreed interest rate is 12% per annum; amazingly, this was not denied or refuted by the [petitioner] bank, in which case, 12% interest rate is applied at least for the period beginning 1997 until 1999, when the loan was renewed under the two (2) new promissory notes which indicated a higher rate of interest of 17.250% per annum.  As mentioned above, the interest payments made by the [respondents] were already admitted by [Metrobank] in its answer to the complaint as well as in its comment to [respondents'] formal offer of evidence, and such interest payments are duly reflected and contained in the passbook account of the [respondents], Exhibit "H," "H-1" to "H-10."  But, in order to determine whether [respondents'] account has become past due or not, as the [petitioner] bank represents, the Court deems it necessary to undertake some mathematical computation the result of which would decisively guide the Court to arrive at a rightful conclusion, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    1) Total interest payments by [respondents]

    from May 7, 1997 to June 30, 1999 -         P3,332,422.00

    2) Interest due

    from May 7, 1997 to June 30, 1999 -         P1,802,500.00

    computed as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    1)
    Total interest payments by [respondents]
    -
    P3,332,422.00
     
    from May 7, 1997 to June 30, 1999
     
     
     
    Interest due
     
     
    2)
    from May 7, 1997 to June 30, 1999
    -
    P1,802,500.00
     
    computed as follows:
     
     
     
    a)
    1st year (P7 M x 12%), from May 7, 1997 to May 28, 1998 
    -
    P  840,000.00
     
    b)
    2nd year
     
     
     
     
    i)
    from June 3, 1998 to Feb. 24, 1999 (8 mos.)
    -
    P  560,000.00
     
     
    ii)
    from March, 1999 to June 30, 1999 (4 mos.)
    -
    P  402,500.00
    3)
    Total Interest paid -  P 3,332,422.00
     
     
     
    Less Interest due -   P 1,802,500.00
     
     
     
    Overpaid interest  - P 1,529,922.00
     
     

    From the foregoing, it is evident that [respondents] overpaid interests for the period of two (2) years, from May 1997 to June 1999, in the total amount of Php. 1,529,922.00.  Thus, the Court is convinced that it is just and equitable that such an overpayment be construed as advance interest payments which should be applied for the succeeding period or year of their contract.  Otherwise, [Metrobank] would unjustly enrich itself at the expense of [respondents].  In such a case, it was premature then for [Metrobank] to declare [respondents'] account as past due, because at that juncture[, respondents'] loan obligation was outstanding and in declaring otherwise, [Metrobank's] action was without basis as there was no violation of their loan contract.  Consequently, it follows that the foreclosure proceedings subsequently held on November 26, 2000 was without factual and legal basis, too. For, indeed, when the foreclosure proceedings in question was conducted, [respondents'] loan account with [Metrobank], as it is said, was still outstanding, because [respondents] were able to pay the interest due.  Therefore, the Court is again convinced that the nullification prayed for is in order.[36]

    We need not say more.cralawlibrary

    In fine, the right of a bank to foreclose a mortgage upon the mortgagor's failure to pay his obligation must be exercised according to its clear mandate, and every requirement of the law must be complied with, or the valid exercise of the right would end.  The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused especially to the prejudice of others.[37]

    As further declared by this Court in Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Dionisio Geronimo and Caridad Geronimo:[38]

    While the law recognizes the right of a bank to foreclose a mortgage upon the mortgagor's failure to pay his obligation, it is imperative that such right be exercised according to its clear mandate. Each and every requirement of the law must be complied with, lest, the valid exercise of the right would end. It must be remembered that the exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused especially to the prejudice of others.

    We, therefore, affirm the CA and sustain the RTC in nullifying the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage and sale, including Metrobank's title.cralawlibrary

    With this disquisition, we find no necessity to discuss the issue of the validity of the consolidation of title by Metrobank.cralawlibrary

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.  The challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87775 are AFFIRMED.cralawlibrary

    Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.cralawlibrary


    Endnotes:


    [1] Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring, rollo, pp. 25-37.cralawlibrary

    [2] Id. at 166-176.cralawlibrary

    [3] Id. at 39-40.cralawlibrary

    [4] Exhibit "2"; records, p. 265.cralawlibrary

    [5] Exhibit "3"; id. at 266.cralawlibrary

    [6] See Exhibits "4" and "5"; id. at 267, 268.cralawlibrary

    [7] Exhibit "17"; id. at 285.cralawlibrary

    [8] Exhibit "18"; id. at 286.cralawlibrary

    [9] Id. at 353.cralawlibrary

    [10] Id. at 356-357.cralawlibrary

    [11] Id. at 359.cralawlibrary

    [12] Exhibit "10"; id. at 273.cralawlibrary

    [13] Exhibit "11"; id. at 274-276.cralawlibrary

    [14] Id. at 1-8.cralawlibrary

    [15] Revising and Consolidating All Laws and Decrees Regulating Publication of Judicial Notices, Advertisements for Public Biddings, Notices of Auction Sales and Other Similar Notices.cralawlibrary

    [16] An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages.cralawlibrary

    [17] Records, pp. 30-34.cralawlibrary

    [18] Id. at 348-350.cralawlibrary

    [19] Supra note 2.cralawlibrary

    [20] Id. at 416-417.cralawlibrary

    [21] Rollo, p. 36.cralawlibrary

    [22] CA rollo, pp. 117-118.cralawlibrary

    [23] Langkaan Realty & Devt., Inc. v. UCPB, 400 Phil. 1349, 1356-1357 (2000).cralawlibrary

    [24] Id. at 1357, citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals, No. L-52043, August 31, 1981, 107 SCRA 126, 129.cralawlibrary

    [25] 321 Phil. 1064, 1069 (1995).cralawlibrary

    [26] 331 Phil. 912, 925 (1996).cralawlibrary

    [27] G.R. No. 170241, April 19, 2010.cralawlibrary

    [28] Supra note 25, at 1070.cralawlibrary

    [29] Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Dionisio Geronimo and Caridad Geronimo, supra note 27.cralawlibrary

    [30] Records, pp. 348-405.cralawlibrary

    [31] Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Dionisio Geronimo and Caridad Geronimo, supra note 27, citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. Peñafiel, G.R. No. 173976, February 27, 2009, 580 SCRA 352, 357.cralawlibrary

    [32] Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. -- During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. (Rule 129, Revised Rules on Evidence).cralawlibrary

    [33] G.R. No. 170049, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 588, 611.cralawlibrary

    [34] G.R. No. 160236, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 73, 91.cralawlibrary

    [35] Cuenca v. Atas, G.R. No. 146214, October 5, 2007, 535 SCRA 48, 84-85.cralawlibrary

    [36] Records, pp. 414-416.cralawlibrary

    [37] PNB v. Nepomuceno Productions, Inc.,  442 Phil. 655, 665 (2002).cralawlibrary

    [38] Supra note 27, citing Metropolitan Bank v. Wong, 412 Phil. 207, 220 (2001).

    [G.R. No. 187917 : January 19, 2011]   METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDMUNDO MIRANDA AND JULIE MIRANDA, Respondents.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED