AM RTJ 93 1031; (January, 1997) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-93-1031. January 28, 1997. RODRIGO B. SUPENA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROSALIO G. DELAROSA, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rodrigo B. Supena, President of BPI Agricultural Development Bank (BAID), initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage executed by PQL Realty Incorporated. The Ex-Officio Sheriff of Manila issued a Notice of Extrajudicial Sale, scheduling the public auction for May 26, 1993, in Manila, where the mortgaged property was located. The notice was duly published.
On May 23, 1993, respondent Judge Rosalio G. de la Rosa, as Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila, issued an Order holding the scheduled auction in abeyance. This Order was based solely on an ex-parte motion filed by the mortgagor, PQL, which was received by BAID only after the Order was issued. The motion cited an alleged agreement between the parties to hold foreclosure proceedings in Makati and a claim of an uncredited payment.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for issuing the Order that suspended the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court found his act of issuing the restraining order without legal basis and in violation of established rules. The applicable law governing the extrajudicial foreclosure is Act No. 3135, as amended. Section 2 of this Act explicitly mandates that the sale “cannot be made legally outside of the province in which the property sold is situated.” Since the mortgaged property is in Manila, the auction must be held there; any contrary stipulation on venue in a separate loan agreement is void as against this mandatory statutory provision.
Furthermore, the judge issued the order ex-parte, without notice and hearing, and without requiring an injunction bond, effectively granting an indefinite restraining order. This was a patent disregard of the proper procedure for injunctive relief and the specific statutory framework for extrajudicial foreclosures. A judge is required to maintain professional competence and diligently ascertain the applicable law. Respondent’s failure to apply the correct, elementary law (Act 3135) and his issuance of a baseless order that disrupted a statutory process constituted gross ignorance, which is inexcusable. The Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00.