Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > August 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 85817 August 23, 1993 - PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 85817. August 23, 1993.]

PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PAMPANGA, sitting at San Fernando, Pampanga, CLERK OF COURT and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of Pampanga, DEPUTY SHERIFF EFREN R. CANEVEL, BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK, CARLOTA P. VALENZUELA and SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO & HERNANDEZ, Respondents.

Balgos and Perez for Petitioner.

Norberto J. Quisumbing & Associates for Private Respondent.

Filemon Fernandez and/or Orlando Samson new counsel for Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank.

Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez and Gatmaitan Law Offices former counsel for Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; WRIT OF PROHIBITION; WHEN AVAILABLE. — The propriety of the petition for prohibition filed with the Court of Appeals was highly doubtful. It appears that petitioner went directly to the Court of Appeals praying for the issuance of temporary restraining order and a writ of prohibition immediately after respondent Ex-officio Sheriff issued on June 17, 1986 the notice of extrajudicial sale and announced the date of the foreclosure sale. Petitioner should have called respondent judge’s attention to the acts of respondent sheriff complaint of ex officer.


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA SP No. 09507, entitled "Pilar Development Corporation v. The Executive Judge of the RTC of Pampanga, Et. Al."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner, a subdivision developer, obtained a loan from Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (BF) in the total amount of P8,944,650.00. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage constituted on various parcels of land located in San Fernando, Pampanga.

On January 25, 1985, by virtue of a Monetary Board (MB) Resolution, finding respondent BF insolvent and incapable of continuing its business, ordered respondent BF to cease operations and placed it under a receiver.

In March 1985, the MB decided that respondent BF could no longer be rehabilitated and appointed respondent Carlota P. Valenzuela as its liquidator. About this time, the majority stockholders of respondent BF filed a petition with the Supreme Court, in the name of respondent BF (G.R. No. 70054), challenging the propriety of the MB resolutions placing respondent BF under a receiver and ordering its liquidation.

In its Resolution of August 29, 1985, the Supreme Court restrained respondent Carlota P. Valenzuela from conducting "further acts of liquidation" of respondent BF.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In a letter dated May 21, 1986, respondent BF asked respondent Ex-Officio Sheriff to extrajudicially foreclose the various parcels of land mortgaged by petitioner to resume its loan of P8,944,650.00 on the ground that petitioner had defaulted in its payment of the loan. Accordingly, on July 17, 1986, respondent Ex-officio Sheriff issued the corresponding notice of extrajudicial sale and scheduled the public auction sale on July 18, 1986 of the mortgaged assets (Decision, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 20-21).

Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to nullify the notice of the extrajudicial sale dated June 17, 1986, announcing the sale at a public auction of petitioner’s property.

The petition was anchored on the theory that respondent Carlota Valenzuela had no authority to act as liquidator of respondent BF because the authority given her by the MB had been revoked by the Supreme Court in its Resolution of August 29, 1985 in G.R. No. 70054, which restrained respondents from conducting "further acts of liquidation." As petitioner’s argument goes, in the absence of the authority of the liquidation, all the proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of petitioner’s mortgaged property, are null and void. Hence, the propriety of the writ of prohibition against respondents Judge and Ex-Officio Sheriffs.

On July 17, 1986, the Court of Appeals required respondents to comment on the petition and at the same time issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining respondents from conducting the scheduled public auction "until further orders."cralaw virtua1aw library

After private respondents filed their comments, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for prohibition and lifted the temporary restraining order in its Decision promulgated on June 2, 1988 and the motion for reconsideration of petitioner in its Resolution dated November 14, 1988 (Decision, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 25-26).

In this appeal, petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals committed reversible errors when it held that respondent Carlota P. Valenzuela’s authority to order the foreclosure was not covered by the restraining order of the Supreme Court, and that prohibition would not lie against respondent Judge and Ex-officio Sheriff because the latter did not act in grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the foreclosure sale (Petition, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 11-12).

Our Resolution in G.R. No. 70054 restrained respondents from conducting "further acts of liquidation" of respondent BF but did not interfere in any way with the authority of the liquidator, under Section 29 of the R.A. No. 265, as amended, in gathering and preserving the assets of respondent BF, including the collection of receivables due the bank and the foreclosure of mortgages to collateralize loans extended by said bank.

Clearly, the restraining order issued by this Court in G.R. No. 70054 was directed against acts of the liquidator considered prejudicial to respondent BF. The acts sought to be enjoined and annulled by petitioner are beneficial to respondent BF. They are not acts in connection with or in furtherance of the liquidation of BF. On that score alone, petitioner has no cause of action to prohibit respondents Judge and Ex-Officio Sheriff from proceeding with the foreclosure sale.

The legal prop of petitioner’s action having been removed, it follows that the petition for prohibition to enjoin the foreclosure sale and to nullify all the proceedings taken by respondents Judge and Ex-Officio Sheriff in connection with the said foreclosure sale, collapses.

The propriety of the petition for prohibition filed with the Court of Appeals was highly doubtful. It appears that petitioner went directly to the Court of Appeals praying for the issuance of temporary restraining order and a writ of prohibition immediately after respondent Ex-officio Sheriff issued on June 17, 1986 the notice of extrajudicial sale and announced the date of the foreclosure sale. The special civil action of prohibition is available only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Sec. 2, Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court; Soliduim v. Hernandez, 7 SCRA 320 [1963]; Caparas v. Ofinia, 9 SCRA 462 [1963]; AFAG Veteran’s Corp. Inc. v. Pineda, 15 SCRA 254 [1965]). Petitioners should have called respondent Judge’s attention to the acts of respondent Ex-officio Sheriff complained of. The petition is not even clear how respondent Judge, aside from being the presiding judge of the court of which respondent Ex-officio Sheriff is the Clerk of Court, got impleaded as a party-respondent.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED with costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr. and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 86939 August 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS DUCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96988 August 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BALAJADIA

  • G.R. No. 80645 August 3, 1993 - MARCELINO GALANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89112 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES M. LIWAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102725 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISMAEL N. RELORCASA

  • G.R. No. 103233 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMO PELIGRO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-383 August 4, 1993 - ANTONIO G. MIRANO v. MARILYN O. SAAVEDRA

  • G.R. Nos. 74294-96 August 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER LLABRES

  • G.R. No. 104513 August 4, 1993 - SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106837 August 4, 1993 - HENRY MACION, ET AL. v. JAPAL M. GUIANI, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-898 August 5, 1993 - EVANGELINE L. DINAPOL v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 85041 August 5, 1993 - GRACIANO BERNAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88475-96 August 5, 1993 - CRESENCIA L. TAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95145 August 5, 1993 - GUALBERTO R. ESTIVA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98007-08 August 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECEMIO JOAQUIN

  • G.R. No. 103303 August 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO E. GASPER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105138 August 5, 1993 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-90-414 August 9, 1993 - BELEN P. FERRIOLS v. NORMA HIAM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-530 August 9, 1993 - TRINIDAD SUNGLAO VDA. DE CORONEL v. CONRADO T. DANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94549 August 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY SUETA

  • G.R. No. 102657 August 9, 1993 - FELICIANO NITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93029 August 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VILLAMOR ACZON

  • G.R. No. 94093 August 10, 1993 - FAR EAST MARBLE (PHILS.), INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102411 August 10, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97873 August 12, 1993 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103302 August 12, 1993 - NATALIA REALTY, INC., ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104226 August 12, 1993 - CONCHITA ROMUALDEZ-YAP v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 90795-96 & 91125-26 August 13, 1993 - SHOEMART, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101583 August 13, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO TIDONG

  • G.R. No. 55343 August 16, 1993 - A & A CONTINENTAL COMM. PHIL., INC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94644 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL M. ALEJANDRO

  • G.R. No. 98468 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103299 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE VIENTE

  • G.R. No. 106164 August 17, 1993 - EDWIN V. SARDEA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90626 August 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ALCORIZA LASCUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94955 August 18, 1993 - JUAN CORONADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109293 August 18, 1993 - HOME INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98472 August 19, 1993 - PHIL. ASS. OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., ET AL. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103059 August 19, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106953 August 19, 1993 - CESAR SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74449 August 20, 1993 - IMELDA A. NAKPIL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96306 August 20, 1993 - LORENZO BERICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103072 August 20, 1993 - MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103295 August 20, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SALAMAT

  • G.R. No. 104216 August 20, 1993 - TEODORO B. PANGILINAN v. GUILLERMO T. MAGLAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105083 August 20, 1993 - VIRGILIO CALLANTA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75038 August 23, 1993 - ELIAS VILLUGA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85817 August 23, 1993 - PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108232 August 23, 1993 - ZONSAYDA L. ALINSUG v. RTC, Br. 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occ., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85073 August 24, 1993 - DAVAO FRUITS CORP. v. ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96541 August 24, 1993 - DEAN JOSE JOYA, ET AL. v. PRESIDENTIAL COMM. ON GOOD GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102973 August 24, 1993 - ROGELIO CARAMOL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103393 August 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO MANZANO

  • G.R. No. 103403 August 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ULILI

  • G.R. No. 104615 August 24, 1993 - EMILIANA MEDINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108229 August 24, 1993 - DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC. v. RUBEN T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99299 August 26, 1993 - ROBERTO ULANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100592 August 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ARMADA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104995 August 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107324 August 26, 1993 - APOLINARIO ESBER, ET AL. v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91889 August 27, 1993 - MANUEL R. DULAY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-565 August 30, 1993 - PATRICIO T. JUNIO v. PEDRO C. RIVERA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97226 August 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BETHOVEN LIZADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98443 August 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO NAPARAN, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 103446-47 August 30, 1993 - MARIANO F. OCAMPO, IV v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105214 August 30, 1993 - FRANCISCO JAVIER O. CARAM, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105141 August 31, 1993 - SIGNETICS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106915 August 31, 1993 - JARDINE DAVIES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.