SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236907. April 16, 2018.]
TERESITA C. ESCAMILLA, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE JUDGE RAYMOND JOSEPH G. JAVIER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 45, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BACOLOD CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE (SPV-AMC), INC. AND EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 April 2018which reads as follows: SICDAa
"G.R. No. 236907 (Teresita C. Escamilla v. Honorable Judge Raymond Joseph G. Javier, in his official capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 45, Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the April 27, 2017 Decision 1 and November 28, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 09568 for failure of petitioner Teresita C. Escamilla (Escamilla) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying her petition for certiorari.
As the CA correctly ruled, there is no showing of any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, Branch 45 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 15-14521, in denying Escamilla's application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the then impending foreclosure sale considering that: (a) the Deed of Assignment of Mortgages unequivocally transferred to respondent Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. (PIONE) all the rights and available remedies that the Bank of Commerce had as creditor-mortgagee against debtor-mortgagor Escamilla; (b) PIONE's right, as mortgagee-assignee, to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgaged properties, under Act No. 3135, 3 as amended, has not yet prescribed on May 5, 2015, the period having been tolled by PIONE's final demand letter to Escamilla dated February 16, 2015; and (c) there is no forum shopping since Escamilla's Complaint for Proper Accounting and Injunction in Civil Case No. 916 before the Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan City, Branch 61 is distinct and separate from PIONE's Extrajudicial Foreclosure Petition since the former's right, as mortgagor, to a proper accounting or to be protected by the writ of injunction is different from PIONE's right, as the mortgagee-assignee, to foreclose. At any rate, the propriety of the RTC's denial of her application for TRO, including the main injunction case, has already been mooted by the sale of the subject properties to PIONE as the highest bidder at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale held on June 11, 2015, 4 with the Certificate of Sale having been issued to PIONE and annotated on the back of Escamilla's titles covering the properties. 5
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 41-53. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Gabriel T. Robeniol concurring.
2.Id. at 57-60. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring.
3. Entitled "AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER SPECIAL POWERS INSERTED IN OR ANNEXED TO REAL-ESTATE MORTGAGES," as amended by Act No. 4118; approved on March 6, 1924.
4. See rollo, pp. 17, 19, 32, and 67.
5. See id. at 32 and 79.