Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
Wherefore, pending action of this Court on Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit, let the following issues be REFERRED to THE INSURANCE COMMISSION for immediate determination and resolution, to wit: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE IS VALID CONSIDERING THE LACK OF AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICERS WHO INITIATED THE SAME II.
Accordingly, it would be unfair for the respondent to foreclose the mortgaged properties. [25] On March 16, 2012, the respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit [26] citing loss of confidence in the judges impartiality in hearing the case. Meanwhile, on March 29, 2012, the RTC issued an Order [27] directing the issuance of WPI after the petitioner posted the required bond. On December 7, 2012, the RTC issued another Order [28] suspending the proceedings and referred the case to the Insurance Commission because the issues are allegedly within the latters jurisdiction. The RTC cited the doctrine of primary jurisdiction as a ground in referring the case to the Insurance Commission. [29] The dispositive portion of the Order provides: Wherefore, pending action of this Court on Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit, let the following issues be REFERRED to THE INSURANCE COMMISSION for immediate determination and resolution, to wit: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE IS VALID CONSIDERING THE LACK OF AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICERS WHO INITIATED THE SAME II. WHETHER OR NOT THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE IS APPROPRIATE CONSIDERING THAT ICON DEVELOPMENT IS NOT IN DEFAULT FOR LACK OF DEMAND BY THE CONSERVATOR The parties through their respective counsels are directed to initiate and/or commence their proper action before the INSURANCE COMMISSION, Metro Manila. x x x x x x x x x [30] Aggrieved, the respondent filed a Petition [31] for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO and/or a WPI under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. The Ruling of the CA On May 26, 2015, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision [32] reversing the RTCs Orders, to wit: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Orders dated January 28, 2012, February 17, 2012, February 20, 2012, March 29, 2012 and December 7, 2012 of the RTC of Lucena City, Branch 60, in Civil Case No. 2011-59 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The motion to prohibit respondent judge from taking further cognizance of the case is DENIED. SO ORDERED.