G.R. No. 153951 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, VS. SANAO MARKETING CORPORATION, SPOUSES AMADO A. SANAO AND SOLEDAD F. SANAO AND SPOUSES WILLIAM (WILLY) F. SANAO AND HELEN SANAO AND THE COURT OF APPEALS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the Provisional Certificate of Sale, upon which the issuance of the writ of possession was based, is fatally infirm, and that consequently, the writ of possession was not validly issued as the procedural requirements for its issuance were not satisfied. [28] Thus, the Court of Appeals declared null and void the two assailed orders of the RTC of Pili for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. [29] Aggrieved by the Decision , PNB filed the instant petition, arguing in the main that in nullifying the orders of the RTC of Pili, the Court of Appeals departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as the issuance of writs of possession is purely ministerial on the part of the trial court. [30] In their comment, [31] respondents point out that the instant petition should not be given due course as it is not sufficient in form and substance. Respondents proffered the following grounds, thus: (1) there was no special of attorney or Board Resolution or Secretary's Certificate attached to the petition which could serve as basis for the petitioners' signatory Domitila A. Amon to verify or attest to the truth of the allegations contained therein, in violation of existing laws and jurisprudence on the matter; (2) petitioners failed to move for a reconsideration of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals; (3) petitioners failed to disclose another similar case involving the same legal issues now pending in the Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals, docketed as C.A. G.R. CV No. 73718, which is an appeal from an original petition for issuance of writ of possession filed by the same petitioner before the RTC of San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 58; (4) petitioner failed to furnish the Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals a copy of the petition in C.A. G.R. No. 73718 pending therein, in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which failure could lead to conflicting resolutions, between two divisions of the Court of Appeals and to the giving of inadequate information to the Supreme Court; and (5) the petition was only accompanied by Annexes A, B, C, D and E, which annexes do not satisfy the requirements laid down in Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. [32] Respondents also reiterate that the PNB in the conduct of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings did not comply with Administrative Order No. 3 and Administrative Circular No. 3-98, and that the notice of publication was not sufficient to justify the execution of the Provisional Certificate of Sale. [33] Traversing the alleged procedural errors, PNB in its Reply [34] raise the following arguments: First, Mrs. Domitila A. Amon had authority to sign and verify its petition under Board Resolution No. 15 dated 8 October 1997, [35] in line with her authority to prosecute and defend cases for and/or against the bank. [36] Second, there are excep