G.R. No. 157659 January 25, 2010
ELIGIO P. MALLARI, Petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, Respondents.

FACTS

In 1968, petitioner Eligio P. Mallari obtained two loans totaling ₱34,000.00 from respondent GSIS, secured by a mortgage on two parcels of land registered under his and his wife’s names. He made partial payments of ₱30,000.00 only in 1978. After demands, GSIS applied for extrajudicial foreclosure in 1984. On August 22, 1986, Mallari filed Civil Case No. 7802 to enjoin the foreclosure. The RTC ruled in his favor, but the CA reversed this decision on March 27, 1996. The Supreme Court denied Mallari’s petition for review on September 16, 1996, and his motion for reconsideration on January 15, 1997, making the CA decision final and executory, thereby upholding the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure and the titles issued to GSIS. GSIS then filed an ex parte motion for execution and a writ of possession, which the RTC granted on October 8, 1999, issuing the writ on October 21, 1999. Mallari did not vacate and instead filed a motion to quash the writ and a second case (Civil Case No. 12053) for consignation, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata. He also filed motions for contempt against GSIS. The case was re-assigned to another RTC branch, which denied his motions and ordered the re-implementation of the writ on July 30, 2001. His motion for reconsideration was denied on February 11, 2002. Mallari assailed these RTC orders via a petition for certiorari in the CA, which dismissed it on March 17, 2003, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and in upholding the RTC orders: (1) dated October 8, 1999, granting the ex parte motion for execution and/or issuance of the writ of execution of possession; (2) dated October 21, 1999, granting the issuance and implementation of the writ of execution cum writ of possession; (3) dated July 30, 2001, directing the re-implementation of the writ; and (4) dated February 11, 2002, denying the motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that the petition for certiorari in the CA was filed beyond the reglementary period, as the assailed orders (October 8 and 21, 1999) had long become final and the motion for reconsideration filed was a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that once a judgment becomes final and executory, the issuance of a writ of execution becomes a ministerial duty of the court, and no prior notice or hearing is required. The Court found that Mallari employed dilatory tactics to impede the execution of a final judgment, which runs counter to the rules for a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases. The CA correctly dismissed the petition, and the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders.