G.R. No. 110147 - Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank) initiated an action on November 25, 1982, seeking a sum of money from private respondents, namely Pacific Multi Commercial Corporation and Alfonso Roxas Chua, Jr.
Private respondents failed to file an answer, resulting in their declaration of default by the trial court.

On May 26, 1983, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment in favor of Metrobank ordering private respondents to pay:

The unpaid loan balance amounting to P964,377.49 as of the filing date of the complaint;
Interest at a rate of 14% per annum accruing from August 10, 1982 until full payment;
Penalty charges at 8% per annum on the outstanding interest;
Attorney’s fees at 10% of the total collectible amount; and
The costs of the suit.

Following the finality of the judgment, Metrobank moved for execution, leading to the garnishment of private respondent Alfonso Roxas Chua, Jr.’s Club Filipino shares.
On July 17, 1991, the deputy sheriff, acting on the execution order, sold the Club Filipino share at public auction, with Metrobank emerging as the highest bidder and receiving a certificate of sale.

On August 12, 1991, private respondent Alfonso Roxas Chua, Jr. filed a motion with the RTC to:

Hold in abeyance the delivery of the certificate of ownership to Metrobank; and
Declare the public auction sale null and void, contending that the certificate was part of the conjugal property jointly owned by him and his wife, Kiang Ming Chu.

The RTC denied the motion on September 30, 1991; thereafter, private respondent’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on February 18, 1992.
On March 26, 1992, private respondent filed a notice of appeal challenging the RTC’s denial of his motion.

Metrobank moved on April 6, 1992 to strike out or expunge from the record the notice of appeal, arguing that, as private respondent had been declared in default, he lacked the standing to appeal.
The RTC dismissed Metrobank’s motion on April 10, 1992 and again denied its subsequent motion for reconsideration on July 23, 1992.
The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently affirmed these RTC orders, leading to the present petition for review filed under Rule 45.

Whether the private respondent, despite being in default, retains the standing to appeal the RTC’s denial of his motion to hold the delivery of the certificate in abeyance.
Whether the default status of the respondent should affect his right to seek appeal on the merits of the decision.

Whether the RTC’s order denying the motion to hold in abeyance the delivery of the certificate of sale is final or merely interlocutory.
Whether an order that leaves nothing further to be done by the trial court regarding the merits is appealable as a final order.

Whether the new grounds raised by petitioner—pertaining to the continuous loss of standing and the appealability of the RTC order—are proper for a petition for certiorari, given that they were not presented before the trial court.