G.R. No. 157659 - Mallari vs. Government Service Insurance System

In 1968, the petitioner obtained two loans totaling P34,000.00 from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
To secure these obligations, he mortgaged two parcels of land registered under his and his wife Marcelina Mallari’s names.

The petitioner made only partial payments: P10,000.00 on May 22, 1978 and P20,000.00 on August 11, 1978, thereby defaulting on the full obligation.
Subsequently, the petitioner engaged in a series of delaying maneuvers intended to stall GSIS’s recovery efforts and to retain possession of the foreclosed property.

On May 2, 1979, GSIS reminded the petitioner of his unpaid obligation.
On November 2, 1981, a telegraphic demand was sent to update the account, followed by the petitioner’s request for a final accounting on November 10, 1981, which was not followed by further necessary action.
Nearly three years later, on March 21, 1984, GSIS applied for extrajudicial foreclosure due to the petitioner’s failure to settle the account.

On November 29, 1984, the petitioner persuaded the sheriff to keep the publication of the foreclosure notice in abeyance pending his request for a final accounting.
Despite subsequent updated statements by GSIS (rendered on December 13, 1984 and May 30, 1985), no further payments were made, prompting GSIS to commence foreclosure proceedings on July 21, 1986.
On August 22, 1986, the petitioner filed a suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, San Fernando, Pampanga (Civil Case No. 7802) for injunction against GSIS and the Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga, seeking to halt the foreclosure.

The RTC ruled in the petitioner’s favor by nullifying the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale, canceling the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) issued in favor of GSIS, and reinstating the petitioner’s TCTs.
GSIS appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC decision on March 27, 1996.
The petitioner subsequently elevated the CA decision to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari, which was denied on September 16, 1996, and the denial was reiterated on January 15, 1997, rendering the CA decision final and executory.

Following finality, GSIS filed an ex parte motion for execution and a writ of possession on September 2, 1999, which was granted on October 8, 1999, and led to the issuance of a writ on October 21, 1999.
Although the sheriff failed to serve the writ due to an extension request from the petitioner, GSIS persisted in its execution efforts.
The petitioner filed various motions:

A motion for reconsideration and/or to quash the writ of execution on March 27, 2000.
A second case (Civil Case No. 12053) for consignation, which was later dismissed on the grounds of res judicata.
Motions for holding GSIS and other officials in contempt for actions taken during the pendency of his motions.

GSIS, to forestall further resolution on these incidents, moved to inhibit the presiding judge of Branch 44, resulting in the reassignment of the case to Branch 48.
The petitioner’s subsequent motions, including a motion for reconsideration in Branch 48, were denied on February 11, 2002.

On March 15, 2002, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the CA challenging several RTC orders:

On March 17, 2003, the CA dismissed the petitioner’s petition for lack of merit, noting his dilatory tactics and abuse of procedural provisions.

Whether the CA erred in refusing to nullify the RTC orders related to the ex parte issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession.
The petitioner questioned the legality of the following RTC orders:

The October 8, 1999 order granting the ex parte motion for execution.
The October 21, 1999 order directing the issuance of the writ of execution cum writ of possession.
The July 30, 2001 order for re-implementation of the writ.
The February 11, 2002 order denying his motion for reconsideration.

Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner was untimely or barred by the 60-day requirement under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether subsequent motions by the petitioner, including multiple motions for reconsideration, rendered his petition for certiorari improper due to resetting or exhaustion of available remedies.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to prior notice of the issuance of a writ of possession under Act No. 3135, as amended, and its pertinent jurisprudence.
Whether the writ of execution cum writ of possession, being a ministerial act, should have been subject to discretionary review by the court.

Whether the petitioner’s repeated and dilatory legal maneuvers to delay the execution of a final and executory decision amounted to an abuse of court process.
Whether his actions constituted misconduct as a lawyer in violation of his ethical obligations and the Lawyer’s Oath.