Case Summary (G.R. No. 146197)
Factual Background
On 20 September 1996, Security Bank loaned P25,000,000 to Innovatech Development and Management Corporation secured by mortgages on fourteen condominium units in Muntinlupa City. Innovatech represented by letter dated 1 July 1997 notified Security Bank that it sold the units to Indiana Aerospace University and submitted a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage and Indiana’s loan application with the Bank of Southeast Asia, stating that proceeds would partly pay the Security Bank loan. The loan matured on 19 September 1997 without payment. Security Bank instituted a notarial foreclosure under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, and purchased the condominium units at the public auction of 29 January 1998 for P32,839,290 as the only and highest bidder.
Trial Court Proceedings
On 25 February 1998, Innovatech sued Security Bank for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and certificate of sale, reconveyance, and damages, with a prayer for injunctive relief. The Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256, on 26 March 1998 issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Indiana Aerospace University filed a complaint-in-intervention on 22 June 1998 and on 1 February 1999 obtained a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing the Register of Deeds of Makati City to cancel the registration and annotation of the certificate of sale on the fourteen condominium certificates of title and enjoining further registration pending trial, subject to a P1,000,000 bond. Security Bank moved for reconsideration of that order, which the trial court denied in an order dated 3 November 1999.
Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
Security Bank sought relief before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 56534. The Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition in its 22 February 2000 Resolution for failure to indicate the material dates required by Sec. 3, Rule 46 — namely the dates when notice of the order was received, when the motion for reconsideration was filed, and when notice of denial was received — and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals denied Security Bank’s motion for reconsideration in its 29 November 2000 Resolution.
The Parties' Contentions
Security Bank contended that it substantially complied with Sec. 3, Rule 46 because the petition expressly stated the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration on page 13 as 23 February 1999 and stated the date of receipt of notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration. Security Bank further asserted that the certified true copy of the trial court’s 1 February 1999 Order attached to the petition bore a stamped date of receipt. The Court of Appeals relied on the absence or ambiguity of the material dates and dismissed the petition for noncompliance.
Issue Presented
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Security Bank’s petition for certiorari on the ground of noncompliance with the date-statement requirement of Sec. 3, Rule 46, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in view of Security Bank’s substantial compliance and the availability of the material dates in the record.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the petition had merit. The Court set aside the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated 22 February 2000 and 29 November 2000, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, and directed that the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 56534 be reinstated, given due course, and decided on the merits. The decision was penned by Carpio, J.; Davide, Jr., C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., concurred.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court quoted Sec. 3, Rule 46 in full and acknowledged that the Rules provide that failure to comply with any of the enumerated requirements is sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court nevertheless explained that it may, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, disregard procedural lapses to resolve a case on its merits because rules of procedure should promote substantial justice. The Court identified the material dates required in Rule 65 petitions as (1) the date of receipt of notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution; (2) the date of filing of the motion for new trial or for reconsideration; and (3) the date of receipt of notice of denial of the motion. The Court found that the petition expressly stated the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration and the date of receipt of the notice of denial. The only omission was the clear statement of the date of receipt of the 1 February 1999 Order; the copy annexed to the petition bore an indistinct stamp. The Court noted that Security Bank subsequently furnished the Court of Appeals with another copy of the 1 February 1999 Order showing a stamped date of receipt of 10 February 1999, thereby remedying the omission an
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 146197)
Parties and Posture
- Security Bank Corporation (formerly Security Bank and Trust Company) was the petitioner before the Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition for review.
- Indiana Aerospace University was an intervenor and respondent in the underlying actions.
- Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256 was the trial forum that issued the orders challenged in the proceedings.
- The Register of Deeds of Makati City was the registry officer enjoined by the trial court order to cancel and refrain from annotating the certificate of sale.
- The petition assailed the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated 22 February 2000 and 29 November 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 56534 that denied Security Bank's petition for certiorari for non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Key Facts
- Security Bank and Innovatech Development and Management Corporation executed a real estate mortgage on 20 September 1996 to secure a PHP 25,000,000 loan.
- The mortgage covered fourteen condominium units with specific Condominium Certificates of Title in the Register of Deeds of Makati City.
- Innovatech allegedly sold the fourteen condominium units to Indiana Aerospace University by a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage and represented that Indiana would refinance and pay Security Bank.
- The loan matured on 19 September 1997 and remained unpaid by both Innovatech and Indiana.
- Security Bank conducted a notarial foreclosure under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, and purchased the condominium units at public auction for PHP 32,839,290 on 29 January 1998.
- Innovatech filed an action on 25 February 1998 to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and obtained a writ of preliminary injunction from the trial court on 26 March 1998.
- Indiana filed a complaint-in-intervention on 22 June 1998 and the trial court subsequently issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on 1 February 1999 directing cancellation and enjoining registration actions by the Register of Deeds.
Procedural History
- The trial court denied Security Bank's motion for reconsideration of the 1 February 1999 order in an Order dated 3 November 1999.
- Security Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the trial court orders in CA-G.R. SP No. 56534.
- The Court of Appeals denied the petition due course on 22 February 2000 for non-compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended by Supreme Court Circular No. 39-98.
- The Court of Appeals denied Security Bank's motion for reconsideration on 29 November 2000.
- Security Bank filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- The sole issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Security Bank's petition for failing to state material dates under Section 3, Rule 46 despite the bank's substantial compliance and ability to show the omitted date from the records.
Contentions
- Security Bank contended that the petition stated the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration in the petition body and that the certified copy of the 1 February 1999 Order attached to the petition bore a stamped date of receipt.
- Security Bank argued that the petition