G.R. No. 182311 - FIDEL O. CHUA AND FILIDEN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VS. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, ATTY. ROMUALDO CELESTRA, ATTY. ANTONIO V. VIRAY, ATTY. RAMON MIRANDA AND ATTY. POMPEYO MAYNIGO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly issued to respondent Metrobank as the highest bidder of the foreclosed properties. [14] On 13 February 2002, petitioners filed with RTC-Branch 257 a Motion to Admit Amended Complaint [15] in Civil Case No. CV-01-0207. The Amended Verified Complaint, [16] attached to the said Motion, impleaded as additional defendant the incumbent Register of Deeds of Parañaque City. Petitioners alleged that the Certificate of Sale was a falsified document since there was no actual sale that took place on 8 November 2001. And, even if an auction sale was conducted, the Certificate of Sale would still be void because the auction sale was done in disobedience to a lawful order of RTC-Branch 257. Relevant portions of the Amended Complaint of petitioners read: 12-E. There was actually no auction sale conducted by [herein respondent] Atty. Celestra on November 8, 2001 and the CERTIFICATE OF SALE (Annex "K-2") is therefore a FALSIFIED DOCUMENT and for which the appropriate criminal complaint for falsification of official/public document will be filed against the said [respondent] Celestra and the responsible officers of [herein respondent] Metrobank, in due time; 12-F. But even granting that an auction sale was actually conducted and that the said Certificate of Sale is not a falsified document, the same document is a nullity simply because the auction sale was done in disobedience to a lawful order of this Court and that therefore the auction sale proceeding is null and void ab initio. [17] Petitioners additionally prayed in their Amended Complaint for the award of damages given the abuse of power of respondent Metrobank in the preparation, execution, and implementation of the Debt Settlement Agreement with petitioners; the bad faith of respondent Metrobank in offering the subject properties at a price much lower than its assessed fair market value; and the gross violation by respondents Metrobank and Atty. Celestra of the injunction. Petitioners also sought, in their Amended Complaint, the issuance of a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin respondent Atty. Celestra and all other persons from proceeding with the foreclosure sale, on the premise that no auction sale was actually held on 8 November 2001. In an Order dated 6 March 2002, RTC-Branch 257 denied petitioners' application for injunction on the ground that the sale of the foreclosed properties rendered the same moot and academic. The auction sale, which was conducted by respondents Metrobank and Atty. Celestra, after the expiration of the TRO, and without knowledge of the Order dated 8 November 2001 of RTC-Branch 257, was considered as proper and valid. [18] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 6 March 2002 Order of RTC-Branch 257. When RTC-Branch 257 failed to take any action on said Motion, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari , docketed as CA-G.R. No. 70208. In a Decision dated 26 July 2002, the Court of Appeals reversed the 6 March 20