548 Phil. 242
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The petitioner is correct, the law expressly authorized the purchaser to petition for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing an Ex-parte Motion under oath for that purpose and that the pendency of any separate civil action can be no obstacle to the issuance of the writ of possession which is a ministerial act of the trial court after a title on the property has been consolidated in the mortgage.In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner CGP averred that the scheduled hearing was violative of the writ of preliminary injunction issued in its favor by the same trial court, albeit in a different case involving the same parties - particularly Civil Case No. 99-234, respecting a complaint for the annulment of the foreclosure proceedings earlier mentioned. It argued that notwithstanding the fact that the complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceedings had already been dismissed by the trial court, such order had not yet become final and executory inasmuch as it was appealed to the Court of Appeals. That being the case, the writ should still be considered in effect and subsisting.
Accordingly, Ex-parte reception of evidence is scheduled on December 1, 2000, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.[10]
[F]inding the grounds relied upon by the oppositor to be meritorious and considering further that there are several motions to be resolved yet by the court, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, the order of this court dated October 20, 2000 is set aside and the ex-parte proceedings is hereby nullified and set aside. The Preliminary Injunction previously issued is reinstated.[11]Consequently, it was respondent PCI's turn to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner on the order of this court dated March 27, 2001, which granted the motion for reconsideration filed by Oppositor to the Order dated November 15, 2000.Aggrieved, respondent PCI filed before this Court, a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, premised on the following grounds:
There is basis to the pending motion of petitioner insofar as the reinstatement of preliminary injunction earlier issued by this court and submission for resolution of motions are concerned, as they all refer to Civil Case No. 99-234. This Court recognizes the snafu brought about by the several pleadings and pending incidents both in the instant case and Civil Case No. 99-234 which involved the same parties and the same subject matter.
Be that as it may, this court, after a careful review of the verified opposition of the oppositor, including it annexes, is not inclined to grant the ex-parte proceedings as asserted by the petitioner. This court reviewed the grounds of oppositor in its motion for reconsideration of the order dated November 15, 2000, which allowed ex-parte presentation of evidence in this case. These grounds are: (a) Presence on record of a verified opposition to the petition and (b) there was an injunction earlier issued by this court on September 3, 1999 on the complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceedings of the subject properties filed by oppositor in Civil Case No. 99-234 also before this court.
It is the considered view of this court that the verified opposition on record joined issues that need to be heard in the presence of both parties, a basic requirement of due process. The general rule frowns [on] ex-parte proceedings. When this court issued a writ of injunction in Civil Case No. 99-234, taking into consideration the allegations in the complaint it was convinced that there was a need for a status quo between the parties until all the issues joined therein are heard and disposed. On technical ground, the complaint in Civil Case No. 99-234 was dismissed by this court. Although it may be too late for this court to say, there were indeed pending incidents that needed to be resolved in Civil Case No. 99-234. Precisely, when this court mentioned of pending motions, it was actually referring to the pending incidents in Civil Case No. 99-234, as correctly pointed out by the Oppositor, petitioner at the time of the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 99-234, it has not filed yet its answer to the complaint in intervention of the plaintiff-intervenor. Petitioner, apparently, took advantage of the inadvertence in the issuance of the order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 99-234 when it kept silent of the fact that it has not filed yet an answer to the complaint in intervention.
This court is cognizant of the rule that the dismissal of the complaint on the merits automatically dissolves the injunction issued therein even if the decision or order of dismissal is on appeal. The dismissal of this court however, of the complaint in Civil Case No. 99-234 was not the result of trial on the merits but rather on mere technicality. It is in this light that this court believes that considering that the dissolution of the injunction was the consequence of the order of dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 99-234, which was not the result of a trial on the merits, and the said order of dismissal is now the subject of appeal, there is a need to suspend the proceedings in this case until the said appeal is disposed.[12]
The petition (G.R. No. 150483) was, however, referred to the Court of Appeals by this Court for appropriate action in a Resolution,[14] dated 3 December 2001, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 56 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, factual issues being involved.
- THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE THE EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE A QUO.
- THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT REINSTATED IN THE CASE A QUO THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WHICH WAS ISSUED IN ANOTHER CASE (CIVIL CASE NO. 99-234).
- THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT SET ASIDE IN THE CASE A QUO THE ORDER DATED 20 OCTOBER 2000 WHICH WAS ISSUED IN CIVIL CASE NO. 99-234.
- THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT SUSPENDED THE PROCEEDINGS A QUO UNTIL THE APPEAL IN CIVIL CASE NO. 99-234 IS RESOLVED.[13]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The orders dated March 27, 2001 and August 28 (sic), 2001 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, in LRC Case No. 99-020 are SET ASIDE. Further, the public respondent judge is ordered to continue with the proceedings and to decide the case with dispatch.[15]The appellate court found public respondent RTC Judge to have gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in suspending the proceedings in LRC Case No. 99-020 relating to the writ of possession asked for by herein respondent PCI. The Court of Appeals did not favor the RTC Judge who, "in effect took cognizance of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 99-234, an action for annulment of foreclosure proceedings filed by"[16] herein petitioner CGP - one that is entirely separate from the case earlier filed. Moreover, "[w]ith the dismissal of the main case, (an) injunction (issued therein) is automatically lifted and the dissolution thereof is not appealable." The Court of Appeals then clarified that though the preceding principle is the general rule, the circumstances surrounding the reinstatement of the subject writ of preliminary injunction do not necessarily entitle the application of the exception stated in Section 4, Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which states:
SEC. 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. - Judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting and support, and such other judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately executory, shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying, restoring or granting the injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support.It likewise noted that the fact that there was no dispute vis-à-vis herein petitioner CGP's failure to redeem the foreclosed real properties within the period, herein respondent PCI's right to possession thereof is quite patent and absolute; and that "any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession xxx."[17]
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be considered proper for the security or protection of the rights of the adverse party.
It is undisputed that this Honorable Court in its resolution dated December 3, 2001 in G.R. No. 150483 has found that issues of facts are raised in the petition filed therein. That these conclusion and finding of this Honorable Court are final and therefore no court for that matter, including the Court of Appeals, can disturb the same. [In fact and in truth, the factual issues are pending for resolution in the case before the Court of Appeals, in the case entitled CGP TRANSPORTATION AND SERVICES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-appellant versus PCI LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION, defendant-appellee docketed as C.A. G.R. No. 69466.] With this factual backdrop, petitioner honestly believes, that there can be no other fate on the said petition [of respondent] but the dismissal, it being a settled jurisprudence that in a petition for review, only questions of law can be raised. Even the Honorable Court of Appeals agree on this point when it says in its aforequoted decision, citing the doctrine laid down by this Honorable Court in BCI Employees & Workers Union v. Marcos, 39 SCRA 178, that "It is however basic that when facts are disputed, certiorari is not an appropriate remedy".[19]Respondent PCI, in contrast, maintains that in rendering its assailed Decision, the "... Honorable Court of Appeals simply discharged the duty assigned to it by this Honorable Court," apropos the latter's 3 December 2001 Resolution.
SEC. 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal. - x x x he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties.It was on this score that we referred the subject petition to the appellate court.
SEC. 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. - The appeal MAY be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:This notwithstanding, the Court may refer the case to the Court of Appeals under par. 2, Section 6 of the same rule. Said section states:
x x x x
(f) Error in the choice or mode of appeal.
SEC. 6. Disposition of improper appeal. - x x xThis Court's discretion to refer the case to the Court of Appeals is by reason of the term "may" in both sections. Such term denotes discretion on our part in dismissing an appeal or referring one to the Court of Appeals.
An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court submitting issues of fact MAY be referred to the Court of Appeals for decision or appropriate action. The determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be final. [Emphasis supplied.]