Case Digest (G.R. No. 210894)
Facts:
This is Noemi S. Cruz and Heirs of Hermenegildo T. Cruz, represented by Noemi S. Cruz v. City of Makati, City Treasurer of Makati, The Register of Deeds of Makati, Laverne Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 210894, September 12, 2018, First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Noemi and Hermenegildo Cruz were registered owners of Condominium Unit 407, Cityland Condominium 10, Tower II, Makati City (the subject property). The City of Makati levied on the property for alleged unpaid real property taxes after the Cruzes’ employee‑representative failed to remit entrusted tax payments. The property was publicly auctioned and sold to respondent Laverne Realty and Development Corporation (Laverne) as highest bidder.
In 2007 petitioners filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 62, Civil Case No. 07‑1155, a complaint for annulment of sale with injunctive relief and damages, alleging defects in billing, notice of delinquency, warrant of levy, posting and publication as required under the Local Government Code (LGC). Laverne later filed LRC Case No. M‑5237 in RTC Makati, Branch 148, seeking surrender of the owner’s duplicate title. Procedural skirmishes followed: on August 26, 2009 RTC Branch 62 granted injunctive relief but refused default; on November 25, 2011 Branch 62 set an incident hearing and required plaintiffs to report developments. Petitioners’ November 18, 2011 omnibus motion to consolidate Civil Case No. 07‑1155 with LRC M‑5237 and to declare Laverne in default was set for resolution.
On March 29, 2012 RTC Branch 62 denied consolidation and motions to declare Laverne in default, expunged Laverne’s belated answer, and required further compliance with proof‑of‑service rules. On June 26, 2012 Branch 62 dismissed Civil Case No. 07‑1155 under Section 3, Rule 17, R. of Civ. Proc. for plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute; its December 27, 2012 order denied reconsideration of that dismissal and again refused to declare Laverne in default. Petitioners filed an original petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) contesting the March 29 and December 27, 2012 orders.
Meanwhile in LRC Case No. M‑5237 (Branch 148), petitioners demurred to evidence; on May 26, 2015 Branch 148 granted the demurrer and dismissed Laverne’s petition, finding noncompliance with Sections 254, 258 and 260 of the LGC (failure to effect proper posting, publication, and service). Laverne’s motion for reconsideration was denied July 30, 2015; its appeal to the CA (CA‑G.R. CV No. 105623) was dismissed for failure to file brief (July 21, 2016), and reconsideration denied (Jan. 27, 2017).
The CA, however, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 128390 (Decision July 22, 2013...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in affirming the RTC Branch 62’s March 29, 2012 and December 27, 2012 orders dismissing Civil Case No. 07‑1155, despite counsel’s negligence causing dismissal and the resulting deprivation of petitioners’ property without due process?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of erroneous mode of appeal instead of deciding the substantive merits of pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)