SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

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. JOVITO 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.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Supervening Event; A

supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the judgment
became final and executory, or of new circumstances that develop
after the judgment attained finality, including matters that the
parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial because such
matters were not yet in existence at that time.·Serra alleges that a
supervening event · the foreclosure sale in favor of Spouses
Andueza · occurred precluding the execution of the CourtÊs
decision in G.R. No. 203241. In Abrigo v. Flores, 698 SCRA 559
(2013), the Court held: A supervening event consists of facts that
transpire after the judgment became final and executory, or of new
circumstances that develop after the judgment attained finality,
including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or
during the trial because such matters were not yet in existence at
that time. In that event, the interested party may properly seek the
stay of execution or the quashal of the writ of execution, or he may
move the court to modify or alter the judgment in order to
harmonize it with justice and the supervening event. The party who
alleges a supervening event to stay the execution should necessarily
establish the facts by competent evidence; otherwise, it would
become all too easy to frustrate the conclusive effects of a final and

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 1 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

immutable judgment. The Court is not convinced that a

supervening event occurred which would effectively prevent the
execution of the decision in G.R. No. 203241. While the foreclosure
sale proceeded on 24 September 2014, after the finality of the
decision in G.R. No. 203241, the real estate mortgage in favor of
Spouses Andueza was executed on 21 September 2011 while G.R.
No.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

423

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 423

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

203241 was pending. Serra could not possibly be unaware that

a foreclosure sale would likely transpire since he was the mortgagor
who defaulted on his loan obligation. Clearly, Serra performed acts
intended to defeat and circumvent the conclusive effects of the final
decision in G.R. No. 203241. Serra defaulted on his loan obligation
and did not lift a finger to prevent Andueza or any person for that
matter from removing RCBC from the subject property.
Same; Same; Courts; Court of Appeals; Jurisdiction; Since the
certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) likewise prays for
an injunction writ and clearly involves the extrajudicial foreclosure
of the subject property, the CA must be given the opportunity to
resolve the propriety of such prayer for injunction, and ultimately
the validity of Rizal Commercial Banking CorporationÊs (RCBCÊs)
claims over the subject property.·RCBCÊs certiorari petition before
the Court of Appeals questions the proceedings resulting from the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the subject property and similarly
involves the respondents impleaded in this contempt petition. Since
the certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals likewise prays for
an injunction writ and clearly involves the extrajudicial foreclosure
of the subject property, the Court of Appeals must be given the
opportunity to resolve the propriety of such prayer for injunction,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 2 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

and ultimately the validity of RCBCÊs claims over the subject

property. This petition for indirect contempt is not the proper action
to determine the validity of the mortgage between Serra and the
Spouses Andueza, and the foreclosure proceedings resulting from
such mortgage.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Indirect

Contempt.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Platon, Martinez, Flores, San Pedro and Leaño for
petitioner RCBC.

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a petition for indirect contempt1 with

prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
(TRO) filed by petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking
Corporation (RCBC) against respondents Federico A.
Serra, et al., for acts allegedly disregarding this CourtÊs
final and executory decisions in G.R. Nos. 103338,2
182478,3 182664,4 and 203241.5

The Facts

On 25 August 2011, RCBC filed a motion for execution

before the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 134 (RTC-
Makati), in Civil Case No. 10054. RCBC sought to execute
the RTC-MakatiÊs Order dated 5 January 1989, which
directed respondent Federico A. Serra (Serra) to sell to
RCBC a parcel of land in Masbate covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. O-232 on which the Masbate
Business Center of RCBC is located (subject property).

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 3 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

During the pendency of Civil Case No. 10054, Serra

mortgaged the subject property to respondent Spouses
Eduardo M. Andueza and Henedina V. Andueza (Spouses
Andueza) on 21 September 2011. On 26 September 2011,
Spouses Andueza had the real estate mortgage annotated
on OCT No. O-232 under Entry No. 2011000513.6

_______________

1 Under Rule 71 of the RULES OF COURT.

2 Entitled Serra v. Court of Appeals, which was promulgated on 4
January 1994 (299 Phil. 63; 229 SCRA 60).
3 Entitled Liok v. RCBC. Resolution issued on 30 June 2008.
4 Entitled Serra v. RCBC. Resolution issued on 22 October 2008.
5 Entitled Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Serra, which
was promulgated on 10 July 2013 (713 Phil. 722; 701 SCRA 124).
6 Rollo (Vol. I), p. 69.

425

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 425

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

In an Order dated 16 February 2012,7 the RTC-Makati

denied RCBCÊs motion for execution for lack of basis. The
RTC-Makati found that it had been almost 18 years after
the 5 January 1989 Order had become final and executory
that RCBC filed the motion for execution. Neither did
RCBC file an action to revive judgment within ten years
from the date the Order became final.
In an Order dated 26 July 2012, the RTC-Makati denied
RCBCÊs motion for reconsideration.
On 11 October 2012, RCBC filed a petition for review
with this Court assailing the RTC-MakatiÊs Orders dated
16 February 2012 and 26 July 2012. The petition was
docketed as G.R. No. 203241. In its petition, RCBC prayed
for the issuance of a TRO to prevent any attempt to remove
it from the subject property, since Serra and Atty. Gina
Besa-Serra had already caused the service of a notice to

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 4 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

vacate and demand for the payment of accrued back

rentals, dated 6 September 2012, on RCBC.
On 3 December 2012, the Court issued a TRO, which
restrained Serra and the RTC-Makati from implementing
and enforcing the Orders dated 16 February 2012 and 26
July 2012 and from performing any act to remove or
threaten RCBC from the subject property.
On 14 February 2013, RCBC had the TRO issued by this
Court annotated on OCT No. O-232 under Entry No.
2013000087.
On 10 July 2013, the Court issued a Decision in G.R. No.
203241 which reads:

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the

assailed Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Makati dated 16
February 2012 and 26 July 2012. The Temporary Restraining Order
issued by this Court on

_______________

7 Rollo (G.R. No. 203241), pp. 39-42.

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

3 December 2012 is made permanent. The Regional Trial Court of

Makati City is DIRECTED to issue the writ of execution in Civil
Case No. 10054 for the enforcement of the decision therein. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.8

The Decision became final and executory on 27

November 2013.9
Meanwhile, Andueza filed a petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage,10 dated 13 August
2013, with the Provincial Sheriff of Masbate since Serra
defaulted on his loan obligation.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 5 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

Pursuant to the Decision in G.R. No. 203241, RCBC filed

on 27 February 2014 a new motion for execution before the
RTC-Makati. Andueza, a nonparty to the case, filed an
opposition to the motion for execution with affirmative
reliefs.
In an Order dated 14 May 2014,11 the RTC-Makati
granted the motion for execution and dismissed the
opposition of Andueza. The RTC-Makati held that the real
estate mortgage is inferior to RCBCÊs right since the
mortgage was constituted when Serra no longer had
ownership and free disposal of the subject property.
Accordingly, the RTC-Makati ordered the issuance of a writ
of execution.
Andueza did not file a motion for reconsideration of the
RTC​-MakatiÊs execution order. Neither did he file an appeal
before the Court of Appeals. Thus, the Order of 14 May
2014 became final.
On 23 June 2014, the RTC-Makati issued a writ of
execution.12

_______________

8 Rollo (Vol. I), p. 75.

9 Id., at p. 77.
10 Id., at pp. 78-79.
11 Id., at pp. 80-83.
12 Id., at pp. 84-86.

427

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 427

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

Based on his Report,13 Sheriff Roberto V. Harina (Sheriff

Harina) of the RTC-Makati attempted to serve on Serra a
copy of the Notice to Comply and a copy of the Writ of
Execution. However, Serra was not in his office so Sheriff
Harina left with SerraÊs caretaker copies of the Notice to
Comply and the Writ of Execution, who returned such

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 6 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

copies by leaving them at the information table of the

Bulwagan ng Katarungan, Masbate City.
Meanwhile, acting on the petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure, respondents Atty. Leomar R. Lanuza (Atty.
Lanuza), Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff of
the RTC-Masbate, and Jovito C. Soriano (Soriano), Sheriff
of the RTC-Masbate, scheduled the public auction of the
subject property on 26 June 2014 at 2:00 in the afternoon.14
On 14 June 2014, RCBC filed a petition for injunction15
before the RTC-Masbate, docketed as Civil Case No. 6971,
to enjoin the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and public
auction of the subject property. Respondent Judge
Maximino R. Ables (Judge Ables), as Executive Judge of
the RTC-Masbate, issued a 72-hour TRO on 25 June 2014.
In a Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure and Sale of Real
Estate Mortgage dated 18 August 2014,16 Soriano
scheduled anew the public auction sale of the subject
property on 24 September 2014 at 2:00 in the afternoon.
In the meantime, RCBC filed before the RTC-Makati a
motion to divest Serra of his title, invoking Section 10(a),
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.17
In a Resolution dated 23 September 2014,18 the RTC-
Mas​bate denied RCBCÊs motion for the issuance of a 20-day
TRO.

_______________

13 Id., at p. 87.
14 Id., at pp. 128-129.
15 Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 549-564.
16 Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 91-92.
17 Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 574-585.

428

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

The public auction sale of the subject property proceeded

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 7 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

on 24 September 2014, with Andueza being the highest

bidder.19
On 25 September 2014, a Certificate of Sale20 was issued
by Soriano, noted by Atty. Lanuza and approved by Judge
Ables. The certificate of sale showed that the subject
property was sold to Andueza.
In an Order dated 26 September 2014,21 the RTC-
Makati granted RCBCÊs motion to divest Serra of his title.
The RTC-Makati also granted RCBCÊs prayer to have the
Registry of Deeds for Masbate cancel Entry No.
2011000513, representing the mortgage of the subject
property. The RTC-Makati stated:

In the same vein, the Court resolves to grant plaintiff Ês prayer to

remove or cancel the mortgage annotation on OCT No. O-232,
specifically Entry No. 2011000513. As held by this Court in its
Order dated 14 May 2014, defendant no longer had ownership and
free disposal of the property by the time he fraudulently mortgaged
the property to the Spouses Eduardo M. Andueza and Dina
Andueza. Clearly, mortgagees-spouses Andueza do not have any
right or interest over the property and the title to be transferred to
plaintiff must be free from invalid encumbrances, such as that of
Entry No. 2011000513 of the Real Estate Mortgage in favor of the
Spouses Andueza.22

In his Comment dated 7 October 2014,23 Serra asserted

that due to the public auction sale on 24 September 2014,
where the subject property was sold to Andueza for being
the

_______________

18 Id., at pp. 586-588.

19 Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 93-94.
20 Id., at p. 95.
21 Id., at pp. 96-98.
22 Id., at p. 98.
23 Id., at pp. 99-101.

429

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 8 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 429

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

highest bidder, he could no longer sell the subject property

to RCBC.
In a motion dated 10 December 2014,24 Spouses
Andueza pleaded that the RTC-Makati vacate its 26
September 2014 Order. Spouses Andueza claimed that the
RTC-Makati erred in cancelling the real estate mortgage
without the trial court conducting any full-blown hearing.
They also alleged that they were not parties in Civil Case
No. 10054; thus, they are not bound by whatever decision
or order the trial court issued in the case. RCBC opposed
the motion.25
On 22 December 2014, RCBC had the Decision in G.R.
No. 203241 annotated on OCT No. O-232 under Entry No.
2014000568.
On 27 January 2015, Andueza, through his counsels
respondents Atty. Paris G. Real (Atty. Real) and Atty.
Prudencio B. Densing, Jr. (Atty. Densing) filed before the
RTC-Masbate an ex parte motion for issuance of writ of
possession,26 which was granted by Judge Ables in an
Order dated 28 January 2015.27
On 29 January 2015, respondent Atty. Edwin L. Rana
(Atty. Rana), Clerk of Court of RTC-Masbate, Branch 47
and Assistant Provincial Sheriff of RTC-Masbate, issued a
writ of possession,28 directing the provincial sheriff to place
Andueza in possession of the subject property, and to eject
all persons claiming rights under Serra.
On the same day, Atty. Rana issued a Notice to Vacate,29
directed against Serra and RCBC, and all persons claiming
any right under Serra. The Notice to Vacate was served on

_______________

24 Id., at pp. 107-119.

25 Id., at pp. 134-145.
26 Id., at pp. 146-153.
27 Id., at p. 154.
28 Id., at pp. 155-156.
29 Id., at p. 157.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 9 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

430

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

RCBC on 30 January 2015. The Notice to Vacate directed

RCBC to „vacate the subject property and to peaceably turn
over its possession in favor of the mortgagee within five (5)
working days from receipt hereof.‰30 The Notice to Vacate
also stated that RCBC will be forcibly evicted from the
subject property should it refuse to vacate.
On 4 February 2015, RCBC filed the present petition for
indirect contempt with prayer for a TRO to enjoin
respondents from enforcing the Notice to Vacate and the
Writ of Possession issued by RTC-Masbate, and to enjoin
the respondent Register of Deeds from annotating on OCT
No. O-232 the Notice to Vacate and Writ of Possession.
RCBC pleaded that respondents be declared guilty of
indirect contempt for disregarding the CourtÊs decisions in
G.R. Nos. 103338, 182478, 182664, and 203241, as well as
the permanent restraining order in G.R. No. 203241.
On 11 February 2015, the Court issued a TRO,31
enjoining respondents, the RTC-Masbate, the Register of
Deeds of Masbate City, their agents, representatives, and
all other persons acting on their behalf from (1) enforcing
or causing the enforcement of the Notice to Vacate and the
Writ of Possession, and (2) annotating on OCT No. O-232
the Notice to Vacate and Writ of Possession.
In its petition for indirect contempt, RCBC argues that
Serra is liable for indirect contempt of court for refusing to
obey the CourtÊs restraining order and Decision in G.R. No.
203241, the RTC-MakatiÊs 5 January 1989 Order, and for
colluding with Spouses Andueza for the illegal mortgage
and foreclosure of the subject property.
Respondents filed their respective Comments to the
petition.

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 10 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

30 Id.
31 Id., at pp. 199-201.

431

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 431

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

In his Corrected Comment filed on 13 March 2015,32

Serra alleged that he is not liable for indirect contempt of
court. He stated:

As it is, the enforcement of the aforesaid Supreme Court

Resolution dated July 10, 2013 was directed by the Supreme Court
to the RTC of Makati, Branch 134. In turn, the enforcement of the
RTC of Makati, Branch 134Ês May 14, 2014 Order of Execution and
Writ of Execution dated June 23, 2014, were directed to be enforced
by Sheriff Roberto V. Harina. Such being the case, Atty. Serra, to
whom the power and authority to enforce the aforesaid Order and
Writ of Execution is not being directed to, cannot be held liable for
indirect contempt of court. x x x.33

Serra further claimed that he did not collude with

Spouses Andueza in having the subject property mortgaged
in 2011. Serra alleged he was a mortgagor in good faith and
the Spouses Andueza were mortgagees in good faith when
they executed a real estate mortgage over the subject
property on 15 August 2011. Spouses Andueza validly
annotated the mortgage on the title of the subject property
with the Register of Deeds for Masbate City on 26
September 2011. At the time of the execution of the
mortgage, OCT No. O-232 had no notice of lis pendens, no
adverse claim, and there was no other lien annotated on
the title of the subject property. In addition, Serra alleged
that RCBC is guilty of forum shopping. RCBC filed a
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing
the RTC-MasbateÊs denial of RCBCÊs application for TRO.
Meanwhile, RCBC filed with this Court the instant petition
for indirect contempt seeking a similar relief.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 11 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

_______________

32 Id., at pp. 428-455.

33 Id., at p. 443.

432

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

In their Comment filed on 19 March 2015,34 Spouses

Andueza35 and Atty. Real contended that they are not
guilty of indirect contempt considering that the writ of
execution issued by the RTC-Makati was directed to Sheriff
Roberto V. Harina, and not to Spouses Andueza; and the
Decision in G.R. No. 203241 was not directed to Spouses
Andueza, who are not parties in the case. Spouses Andueza
accused RCBC and its counsels of negligence and lack of
prudence in failing to annotate for almost 18 years RCBCÊs
supposed rights over the subject property on OCT No. O-
232. Spouses Andueza claimed good faith in executing the
real estate mortgage with Serra, after checking with the
Register of Deeds of Masbate City that OCT No. O-232 was
free from any lien. RCBC and its counsels allegedly did not
exercise prudence to protect RCBCÊs interests even after
the annotation of the real estate mortgage on OCT No. O-
232 on 26 September 2011. Neither did RCBC and its
counsels inform Spouses Andueza of RCBCÊs rights over the
subject property. RCBC and its counsels also failed to
oppose AnduezaÊs petition for extrajudicial foreclosure,
which Andueza filed after Serra defaulted on his loan
obligation. They also failed to file any action to cancel the
real estate mortgage with application for TRO to possibly
enjoin the foreclosure proceedings. Spouses Andueza also
claimed that RCBC committed forum shopping when it
filed the present petition since it had a pending petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals seeking practically
the same relief, which is to prevent the foreclosure of the
real estate mortgage and auction sale of the subject

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 12 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

property. Likewise, RCBC violated the doctrine of

hierarchy of courts when it

_______________

34 Id., at pp. 469-538.

35 In a Manifestation dated 22 June 2015, counsel for respondent
Henedina Andueza informed the Court of the death of Eduardo M.
Andueza, who will be substituted in this case by his heirs, Henedina
Andueza and children Farrah France A. Corbeta and Froilan V. Andueza.
Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 703-705.

433

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 433

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

filed the present petition directly with this Court, when it

should have been filed with the RTC.
In his Comment filed on 26 February 2015, Atty.
Densing alleged that he was not a party or a counsel in
G.R. No. 203241. He was merely a collaborating counsel in
the extrajudicial foreclosure case filed by Spouses Andueza.
In his Comment filed on 9 July 2015,36 Judge Ables
argued that he issued a writ of possession order in favor of
Andueza „after finding mortgagee x x x Andueza to have
satisfied all the requirements provided for under Act No.
3135 x x x.‰ He stated that he „simply performed his
ministerial duty and was not in a position to adjudicate
and look further on matters not forming part‰ of the case
before him. Further, he alleged that at the time he issued
the writ of possession, there was no injunction from the
Court.
In their Comment filed on 11 March 2015,37 Atty.
Lanuza, Atty. Rana, and Soriano claimed that they were
merely performing their ministerial duties under A.M. No.
99-10-05-0 which prescribes the procedure in extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage. The TRO issued by this Court was
specifically addressed to Serra, RTC-Makati, their agents,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 13 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

representatives and any person acting in their behalf. In

short, the TRO was not addressed to respondent clerks of
court and sheriff. Further, Atty. Rana issued the Writ of
Possession and Notice to Vacate against Serra, RCBC, and
all persons claiming rights under the former pursuant to
the Order of RTC-Masbate dated 28 January 2015 and
Section 10(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
In his Comment filed on 6 March 2015,38 respondent
Atty. Erwin S. Oliva, as Acting Register of Deeds for the
Province of Masbate, argued that he was merely
performing his ministe-

_______________

36 Id., at pp. 714-715.

37 Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 296-299.
38 Id., at pp. 278-281.

434

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

rial duty to approve and annotate documents when all the

requirements have been complied with. The restraining
order was allegedly not directed or addressed to his office.

The Issue

The issue in this case is whether respondents are liable

for indirect contempt.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is granted in part.

Indirect Contempt

In Castillejos Consumers Association, Inc. v.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 14 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

Dominguez,39 the Court defined contempt of court, as

follows:

Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or

disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a
disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative
or judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly
behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as
to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a
body. In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends
a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court.
There are two (2) kinds of contempt of court, namely: direct and
indirect. Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that which is
committed out of the presence of the court. A person who is guilty of
disobedience or of resistance to a lawful order of a court or who
commits any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice may be
punished for indirect contempt.

_______________

39 757 Phil. 149, 158-159; 754 SCRA 385, 394 (2015).

435

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 435

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

In this case, RCBC accuses respondents of committing

indirect contempt under Section 3, paragraphs (b) and (d),
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and

hearing.·After a charge in writing has been filed, and an
opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within
such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself
or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be
punished for indirect contempt:
xxxx
 Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,
(b) 

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 15 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who,

after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the
judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or
attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real
property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or
possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the
person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
xxxx
 Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
(d) 
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
xxxx
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the
court from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or
from holding him in custody pending such proceedings. (Emphasis
supplied)

RCBC alleges that respondents are guilty of indirect

contempt for disregarding this CourtÊs final and executory
decisions in G.R. Nos. 103338, 182478, 182664, and
203241, which essentially upheld RCBCÊs superior right
over the subject property.

436

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

In G.R. No. 103338, which became final and executory

on 15 April 1994, the Court found that „the contract of
ÂLEASE WITH OPTION TO BUYÊ between [Serra] and
[RCBC] is valid, effective and enforceable, the price being
certain and that there was consideration distinct from the
price to support the option given to the lessee.‰40
In G.R. Nos. 182478 and 182664, the Court issued
separate Resolutions dated 30 June 2008 and 22 October
2008, which became final and executory on 27 August 2008
and 3 March 2009, respectively, finding neither reversible
error nor grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court
of Appeals which held that SerraÊs donation of the subject

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 16 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

property to Ablao was simulated and was done solely to

evade SerraÊs obligation of selling the subject property to
RCBC. Consequently, the deed of donation was null and
void.41

The Decision and TRO in G.R. No. 203241

In its Resolution of 3 December 2012 in G.R. No. 203241,

the Court issued a TRO which pertinently reads:

xxxx
NOW, THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until
further orders from this Court, You, the respondent [Federico A.
Serra], and the Regional Trial Court, Br. 134, Makati City,
your agents, representatives and anyone acting on your
behalf are hereby RESTRAINED from implementing and enforcing
the Orders dated 16 February 2012 and 26 July 2012 of the
Regional Trial Court, Br. 134, Makati City, in Civil Case No. 10054
and from performing any act to remove or threaten to remove the
petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation from the subject
property.

_______________

40 Supra note 2 at p. 75; p. 70.

41 Rollo (G.R. No. 182664), p. 45.

437

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 437

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

x x x x42 (Emphasis supplied)

In its Decision of 10 July 2013 in G.R. No. 203241, the

Court directed the RTC-Makati to issue the writ of
execution in Civil Case No. 10054 and made the TRO
permanent. The Court further stated that:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 17 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

In the present case, there is no dispute that RCBC seeks to

enforce the decision which became final and executory on 15 April
1994. This decision orders Serra to execute and deliver the proper
deed of sale in favor of RCBC. However, to evade his obligation to
RCBC, Serra transferred the property to his mother Ablao, who
then transferred it to Liok. SerraÊs action prompted RCBC to file
the Annulment case. Clearly, the delay in the execution of the
decision was caused by Serra for his own advantage. x x x.43

Serra and Spouses Andueza are guilty

of indirect contempt

As a party in G.R. No. 203241, Serra cannot feign

ignorance of the CourtÊs decision and restraining order in
that case. The TRO was issued on 3 December 2012 while
the decision was promulgated on 10 July 2013. By virtue of
the TRO, which was made permanent, Serra was enjoined
to perform any act to remove RCBC from the subject
property. Yet, by defaulting on his loan obligation with
Andueza, and AnduezaÊs foreclosure of the real estate
mortgage, Serra in effect allowed the removal of RCBC
from the subject property. SerraÊs conduct tended to impede
the administration of justice by effectively allowing RCBC
to be removed from the premises of the subject property, in
contravention of the clear directive in the decision and
restraining order in G.R. No.

_______________

42 Rollo, p. 64.
43 Supra note 5 at p. 727; p. 230.

438

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

203241. Therefore, Serra is guilty of indirect contempt and

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 18 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

accordingly fined P30,000.

Serra also claims that „he can no longer execute a Deed
of Absolute Sale in favor of [RCBC] because the subject
property was already foreclosed and sold in public auction
in favor of Spouses Eduardo and Dina Andueza x x x.‰44 In
other words, Serra alleges that a supervening event · the
foreclosure sale in favor of Spouses Andueza · occurred
precluding the execution of the CourtÊs decision in G.R. No.
203241.
In Abrigo v. Flores,45 the Court held:

A supervening event consists of facts that transpire after the

judgment became final and executory, or of new circumstances that
develop after the judgment attained finality, including matters that
the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial because
such matters were not yet in existence at that time. In that event,
the interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or the
quashal of the writ of execution, or he may move the court to modify
or alter the judgment in order to harmonize it with justice and the
supervening event. The party who alleges a supervening event to
stay the execution should necessarily establish the facts by
competent evidence; otherwise, it would become all too easy to
frustrate the conclusive effects of a final and immutable judgment.

The Court is not convinced that a supervening event

occurred which would effectively prevent the execution of
the decision in G.R. No. 203241. While the foreclosure sale
proceeded on 24 September 2014, after the finality of the
decision in G.R. No. 203241, the real estate mortgage in
favor of Spouses Andueza was executed on 21 September
2011 while G.R. No. 203241 was pending. Serra could not
possibly be unaware that a foreclosure sale would likely
transpire since

_______________

44 Rollo (Vol. I), p. 100.

45 711 Phil. 251, 262; 698 SCRA 559, 571-572 (2013).

439

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 19 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 439

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

he was the mortgagor who defaulted on his loan obligation.

Clearly, Serra performed acts intended to defeat and
circumvent the conclusive effects of the final decision in
G.R. No. 203241. Serra defaulted on his loan obligation and
did not lift a finger to prevent Andueza or any person for
that matter from removing RCBC from the subject
property.
The 5 January 1989 Order of the RTC-Makati, which
directed Serra to sell to RCBC the subject property, became
final and executory on 15 April 1994. Serra has delayed for
23 years the execution of this Order. As the Court observed
in G.R. No. 203241, „Serra has continued to evade his
obligation by raising issues of technicality.‰ Clearly, Serra
deserves to be sanctioned for such reprehensible conduct of
delaying for 23 years the execution of the final and
executory order of the RTC-Makati, as affirmed by this
Court in G.R. No. 203241.
Despite being nonparties in G.R. No. 203241, Spouses
Andueza have notice of the pendency of such action. On 14
February 2013, RCBC had the TRO issued by this Court
annotated on OCT No. O-232 under Entry No. 2013000087.
Therefore, Spouses Andueza have actual knowledge of the
CourtÊs TRO in G.R. No. 203241 prior to their filing of the
petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the subject property
on 13 August 2013. Further, the decision in G.R. No.
203241 was promulgated prior to the Spouses AnduezaÊs
initiation of foreclosure proceedings. Spouses Andueza
cannot therefore invoke lack of knowledge of RCBCÊs
interest over the subject property when they filed the
petition for extrajudicial foreclosure. Hence, such
knowledge should have prevented, or at the very least
cautioned, the Spouses Andueza from proceeding with the
foreclosure which had the effect of removing RCBC from
the property, in contravention of the clear language of the
Court in G.R. No. 203241. In other words, the Spouses
AnduezaÊs act of instituting the petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure, which would ultimately result in removing
RCBC from the subject property, obviously tended to
impede the administration of justice and thus constitutes

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 20 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

indirect contempt of court.

440

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

Accordingly, the Spouses Andueza are likewise adjudged

guilty of indirect contempt and fined P30,000.
The other respondents, namely the counsels of the
Spouses Andueza, merely acted to protect the interests of
their clients over the subject property while the public
respondents simply acted pursuant to their ministerial
duties and responsibilities in foreclosure proceedings.
These acts do not constitute indirect contempt of court
absent any clear and convincing evidence that they
willfully disobeyed the decision and restraining order in
G.R. No. 203241 or committed any act which tended to
impede the administration of justice.

The TRO must be lifted

The TRO earlier issued in this case must be lifted. The

Court notes that RCBC filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals, docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
137314, assailing the denial by Judge Jose C. Fortuno of
RTC-Masbate, Branch 48 of its motion for issuance of a
TRO, and praying for a writ of injunction to enjoin
„respondent Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff of the
Regional Trial Court of Masbate City, Deputy Sheriff
Soriano, respondent Spouses Andueza, the Register of
Deeds for the Province of Masbate, and respondent-
intervenor Federico A. Serra, x x x from further performing
any act done pursuant to or resulting from the illegal
foreclosure sale of the subject property, x x x and any other
act pursuant to or resulting from the foreclosure sale that
has the effect of ousting petitioner RCBC from the subject
property, x x x.‰46 RCBCÊs certiorari petition before the
Court of Appeals questions the proceedings resulting from
the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the subject property

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 21 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

and similarly involves the respondents impleaded in this

contempt petition. Since the certiorari petition before the
Court of Appeals likewise prays for an injunction writ and
clearly in-

_______________

46 Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 621-622.

441

VOL. 831, JULY 19, 2017 441

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra

volves the extrajudicial foreclosure of the subject property,

the Court of Appeals must be given the opportunity to
resolve the propriety of such prayer for injunction, and
ultimately the validity of RCBCÊs claims over the subject
property. This petition for indirect contempt is not the
proper action to determine the validity of the mortgage
between Serra and the Spouses Andueza, and the
foreclosure proceedings resulting from such mortgage.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED IN PART.
Respondents Federico A. Serra and Spouses Eduardo and
Henedina Andueza are found guilty of indirect contempt of
court and accordingly ordered to pay a fine of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) each. The Temporary
Restraining Order issued earlier is hereby LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.

Peralta, Mendoza and Martires, JJ., concur.

Leonen, J., On Official Leave.

Petition granted in part.

Notes.·Supervening events are circumstances that

transpire after the decisionÊs finality rendering the
execution of the judgment unjust and inequitable. (Go vs.
Echavez, 764 SCRA 505 [2015])
A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 22 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 831 18/09/2019, 12)15 PM

supervening events, the conflicting issue that may be

resolved by the court ceases to exist. (Republic vs. Moldex
Realty, Inc., 783 SCRA 414 [2016])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d4290434df0bf3dc3003600fb002c009e/p/AUG432/?username=Guest Page 23 of 23