Case Digest (G.R. No. 163785)
Facts:
KKK Foundation, Inc. v. Hon. Adelina Calderon‑Bargas, G.R. No. 163785, December 27, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The petition is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.On March 1, 2002, petitioner KKK Foundation, Inc. filed a complaint for Annulment of Extra‑judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage and/or Nullification of Sheriffs Auction Sale and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, alleging fraud in the sale, lack of posting of the sheriff’s notice, defects in the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure, inadequate bidding, and impermissible sale of separately titled parcels en masse. On March 7, 2002, the trial court (Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal) issued a temporary restraining order preventing Imelda A. Angeles from consolidating ownership of the foreclosed properties; on the same day the parties executed a Compromise Agreement under which petitioner agreed to pay the bid price within 20 days, and the parties moved to approve that compromise.
After petitioner filed on April 1, 2002 an Ex‑Parte Motion to Recall the Compromise Agreement for lack of consultation with other trustees and owners, the trial court initially characterized both the motion to recall and the motion to approve as noncompliant with Rule 15, Secs. 4 and 5 and "mere scraps of paper." Nevertheless, in a Decision dated June 28, 2002 the trial court approved the Compromise Agreement, which required petitioner to pay P5,500,000 within twenty days and provided that upon payment Angeles would execute deeds of redemption and cancellation of mortgage and surrender the eight titles.
Thereafter Angeles moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. On September 9, 2002 the trial court gave petitioner ten days to comment on the motion; on October 3, 2002 the trial court directed the Clerk to issue a writ of execution; petitioner’s contemporaneous Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment was denied on October 10, 2002. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the trial court later denied on December 12, 2003.
Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari (CA‑G.R. SP No. 73965) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in issuing the October 3 and October 10, 2002 orders before petitioner could file comment, in granting the writ of execution without a proper notice of hearing, and in issuing a writ that altered the tenor of the June 28, 2002 judgment. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated November 28, 2003 and a Resolution dated May 26, 2004, dismissed the petition, holding that petitioner was given sufficient time to file its comment and declining to rule on some issues because pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner denied procedural due process when the trial court issued the October 3, 2002 and October 10, 2002 orders before petitioner filed its comment?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in granting Angeles’ Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution despite the motion’s alleged lack of a proper notice of hearing under Rule 15, Secs. 4–5?
- Did the writ of execution issued pursuant to the June 28, 2002 decision vary the ten...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)