GR 219815

JOS Managing Buildigers, Inc and Eduardo B. Olaguer, Petitioners vs

United Overseas Bank of the Philippines, Emmanuel T. Mangosing and David Goh Chai Eng, Respondents

Facts:

 Petitioner mortgage its properties to respondent bank to obtain loan. When petitioner was
unable to pay, Respondents foreclosed the properties. Later an auction sale was had.
 Sep 10, 1999, Petitioners filed a petition for annulment of Extrajudicial foreclosure sale against
UOBP and Atty Ricardo De Guzman in RTC QC (was raffled to RTC br 98)
On May 17,2000 the RTC issued a writ of Preliminary Injunction against the respondents
prohibiting them from
a. Consolidating title to the subject properties a
 8 years later, on May 5, 2008, while the case was still pending, respondents sold the properties
to Onshore Strategic Assets Inc.
 Thus petitioners filed a petition before the RTC QC (this was raffled br 87) to declare
respondents in Contempt of court for allegedly violating the writ Preliminary injunction.
On the other hand, respondent filed a motion to dismiss.
Respondents’ contention
- The writ merely prohibited them from consolidating the property and did not enjoin them
from selling it

 June 12, 2008, RTC br 98 issued a decision annulling the extrajudicial foreclosure and public
auction sale of the properties.
Petitioners then appealed to the CA.
On Nov 28,2013, CA reversed the RTC order dismissed the annulment case.
 May 8, 2014, armed with the CA decision on the annulment case, respondents filed a 2nd
motion(motion to dismiss) before the RTC br 87 to dismiss the Contempt case on account that
since CA already dismissed the annulment case, the writ had become moot and academic.
CA agreed with the respondents and hence granted the motion to dismiss.
 Petitioners filed an MFR for the order of the dismissal (of the contempt case).
The hearing was set for Nov 7, 2014 but Respondents only received the notice on Nov 6(1 day
before the scheduled hearing).
Thus, on Nov 11, 2014 Respondents, filed a motion to Expunge the MFR on the ground that
petitioner violated the 3 day notice rule under Rule 15 sec 4 of the Rules of Court.
Accordingly, RTC br 87 granted the motion to expunge.

 Petitioners Filed for certiorari

Issue:

 Issues
1. Whether RTC erred in granting the motion to expunge. (eto lang yung relevant)
2. Whether RTC erred when it dismissed the contempt case for being moot and academic

Ruling

 On issue 1
Answer
- No
Legal basis
- Rule 15 sec 4 ROC
“ Every written motion is required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be
served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least 3 days before the
date of hearing…..”
- The 3 day requirement is an integral part of due process. It is for the benefit of the adverse
party.
Application
- Here petitioner was only notified on Nov 6, 1 day before the scheduled hearing
Conclusion
- Thus, RTC 87 did not err in granting the motion to expunge

 On issue 2
Answer
- Yes. The RTC erred.

Legal Basis

- A case is moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening

events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value.
- An injunction or restraining order which is not void must be obeyed while it remains in full
force and effect..
Application
- In this case, the alleged facts in violation of the writ were committed WHILE the writ was
still subsisting.
Conclusion
- Hence respondents are guilty of indirect contempt. The RTC erred in granting the motion to
dismiss the contempt case