G.R. No. 179914, June 16, 2014.
SPOUSES REYNALDO AND HILLY G. SOMBILON, Petitioners, vs. ATTY. REY FERDINAND GARAY AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Reynaldo and Hilly G. Sombilon mortgaged their property to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). The property was foreclosed and sold at a public auction on July 15, 1998, with PNB as the winning bidder. The spouses failed to redeem the property within the one-year redemption period. In 2005, the spouses sought the help of Atty. Rey Ferdinand T. Garay, a PAO lawyer who had previously been appointed as counsel de officio for Hilly Sombilon in a criminal case, to reacquire the property from PNB. They proposed that Atty. Garay advance the money, and in exchange, they would sell him a portion of the property. Atty. Garay inquired with PNB and offered to buy the entire property. The spouses later also offered to buy back the property but failed to make the required down payment. PNB approved Atty. Garay’s offer. On May 9, 2005, PNB filed an Ex-Parte Petition for a Writ of Possession before the RTC of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Branch 8, presided by Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr. The petition was granted, and a Writ of Possession was issued. The spouses moved for reconsideration, arguing that Atty. Garay was barred from purchasing the property under Article 1491 of the Civil Code. Judge Venadas, Sr. issued an Order holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession, directing Atty. Garay to appear at a hearing. Atty. Garay and PNB filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition and set aside the RTC Order. The spouses filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court. Separately, Atty. Garay filed an administrative complaint (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000) against Judge Venadas, Sr. for Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Petition for Certiorari and finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Venadas, Sr. in holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession; and (2) Whether Judge Venadas, Sr. should be administratively sanctioned.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review in G.R. No. 179914 and found Judge Venadas, Sr. administratively liable in A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000. The Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty once the redemption period expires without redemption. PNB, as the registered owner after the foreclosure and expiration of the redemption period, was entitled to the writ. The RTC’s order holding the writ in abeyance based on the alleged disqualification of Atty. Garay under Article 1491 of the Civil Code constituted grave abuse of discretion, as such a claim was a collateral attack that should be raised in a separate action. The Court also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration was not necessary under the circumstances, and there was no forum-shopping. In the administrative case, the Court found Judge Venadas, Sr. guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law for disregarding the ministerial nature of issuing a writ of possession and for proceeding with a hearing on a motion without proof of service, in violation of the Rules of Court. He was fined P20,000.00.