Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > August 2010 Resolutions > [A.M. No. 10-8-261-RTC : August 31, 2010] REQUEST OF METROBANK'S COUNSEL THAT THE FILING FEES PAID TO THE RTC-MAKATI CITY IN ITS FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE BE APPLIED TO THE REQUEST FOR EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE :

Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution dated AUGUST 31, 2010, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. 10-8-261-RTC (Request of Metrobank's Counsel that the Filing Fees Paid to the RTC-Makati City in its First Request for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure be Applied to the Request for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure).

RESOLUTION

For failure of Global Holiday Ownership Corp. to settle its obligations with Metrobank under a debt settlement agreement, the latter caused the sale at public auction of Global's property. Four days before the scheduled auction sale, Global filed a complaint for annulment of extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings and damages and applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction against Metrobank. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 146 issued a TRO and later a writ of preliminary injunction. Metrobank questioned the RTC's order through a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA granted Metrobank's petition and held that Global had no right to an injunction while Metrobank had the right to foreclose the real estate mortgage. Global filed a petition for review with this Court.

In a Decision^[1] dated June 19, 2009, the Court set aside the CA decision and upheld the RTC's writ of preliminary injunction. It held that Metrobank should have furnished Global with a personal notice of the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings since the parties made it part of their debt agreement. Without such notice, the extra-judicial proceedings would be null and void. Metrobank cannot be prevented from foreclosing the mortgage, but only after it had notified Global.
 
Following the Decision, Metrobank through counsel Atty. Benjamin G. Calima, wrote the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Makati City (OCC-RTC), saying it was withdrawing its first request for extra-judicial foreclosure and would re-file the same after giving due notice to Global. Atty. Calima then asked that the filing fee Metrobank had paid for the first request for extra-judicial foreclosure be credited to the second request, since they are merely re-filing the application for extra-judicial foreclosure. The OCC-RTC advised Atty. Calima to seek the Court's permission.

In its Memorandum dated August 16, 2010, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommends the denial of the request for lack of merit. Atty. Calima himself admitted that the first application for extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings had been withdrawn, such that the transaction on the first request had already been terminated. Besides, the OCC-RTC duly acted on the first request and had scheduled the public auction, and it is not the OCC-RTC s fault that the foreclosure proceedings turned out to be defective because of Metrobank's failure to furnish Global with personal notice.

The Court does not adopt OCA's recommendation.

The fees are necessary a) for jurisdictional purposes, and b) as payment for the court's services and expenses. Since the petition in this case has been withdrawn before the services could be rendered and expenses incurred, there is no justification for the RTC not to allow Metrobank to apply the fees for foreclosure to the same real estate mortgage.

ACCORDINGLY, Metrobank's request that the filing fee it had paid for the first application for extra-judicial foreclosure be applied to its second application for extra-judicial foreclosure is GRANTED."

Brion, J., on official leave.
Peralta, J., on official business.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] G.R.No. 184081.