G.R. No. 216124 July 19, 2017
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner vs. FEDERICO A. SERRA, SPOUSES EDUARDO and HENEDINA ANDUEZA, ATTY. LEOMAR R. LANUZA, MR. JO VITO C. SORIANO, ATTY. EDWIN L. RANA, ATTY. PARIS G. REAL, ATTY. PRUDENCIO B. DENSING, JR., HON. JUDGE MAXIMINO R. ABLES, and ATTY. ERWIN S. OLIVA, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner RCBC sought to execute a 1989 Order from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 134, directing respondent Federico Serra to sell a parcel of land in Masbate to RCBC. During the case’s pendency, Serra mortgaged the property to respondent Spouses Andueza in 2011. The RTC-Makati initially denied RCBC’s 2011 motion for execution, but the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 203241, reversed this and ordered execution, making permanent a TRO that restrained acts to remove RCBC from the property. This Decision became final in November 2013.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directive, the RTC-Makati granted RCBC’s motion for execution in May 2014, dismissing the Anduezas’ opposition and ruling their mortgage inferior to RCBC’s right, as Serra no longer had free disposal of the property. This order became final. Meanwhile, the Anduezas, based on Serra’s loan default, initiated extrajudicial foreclosure. Despite RCBC’s injunctive suit in Masbate, the foreclosure sale proceeded in September 2014, with the Anduezas as the highest bidder. RCBC then filed this petition for indirect contempt.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Federico Serra and Spouses Eduardo and Henedina Andueza are guilty of indirect contempt for willfully disobeying the final and executory judgments of the Supreme Court.

RULING

Yes, but only as to respondents Serra and the Spouses Andueza. The Court found them guilty of indirect contempt. The legal logic centers on the finality of judgments and the duty to obey court orders. The Supreme Court’s Decision in G.R. No. 203241, which ordered the execution of the 1989 sale and made the TRO permanent, was a final and executory judgment. Serra and the Anduezas’ actions after this finality constituted a willful disregard of the Court’s authority. Serra, by mortgaging the property while the case was pending and after the Court had affirmed RCBC’s right, and the Anduezas, by pursuing foreclosure and purchasing the property at auction with knowledge of the Court’s TRO and final ruling, impeded the administration of justice. Their acts were calculated to defeat RCBC’s vested rights as confirmed by the final judgment. However, the other respondent court officials and lawyers were not held in contempt, as their actions in the foreclosure were performed in their official capacities and the petition was not the proper vehicle to assail the mortgage’s validity. The Court imposed a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00) on each of the guilty respondents.