Marcelo vs.
PCIB
Case: Spouses Marcelo filed a PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI before the SC under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated 31 January 2007 and the Resolution2 dated 29 August
2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 82424, upholding the validity of the extra-judicial
foreclosure proceedings initiated by Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) and the
subsequent public auction sale conducted against their properties.
Facts:
The spouses Marcelo obtained from PCIB several loans in staggered amounts within the period 1996-
1997. In turn, they executed promissory notes in favor of PCIB. To secure the payment of their loans,the
spouses Marcelo executed an REM over six parcels of land all situated in Baliuag, Bulacan.
The spouses Marcelo defaulted on the payment of their outstanding loans, prompting PCIB to make
repeated demands for its payment. PCIB filed a Petition for Extra-judicial Foreclosure over the
mortgaged properties before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. A Notice of Sheriff’s Sale was issued by the
Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan. The said Notice was posted on the Meralco posts within the vicinities of
Baliuag Roman Catholic Church, Baliuag Public Market and the chapel of Sabang, Baliuag, Bulacan as
evidenced by the Affidavit of Posting executed by Sheriff Ipac. The Notice was also sent by registered
mail to PCIB and spouses Marcelo, but the latter denied receiving the same. The Notice of the Sheriff’s
Sale was, likewise, published in The Times Newsweekly, a newspaper of general circulation as evidenced
by the Affidavit of Publication and copies of publications. Consequently, a public auction sale was held
and the six parcels of land were sold to PCIB. The Certificate of Sale was issued to and was then
annotated on the TCTs of the subject lands on 10 November 1998.
Shortly before the expiration of the redemption period, spouses Marcelo filed a Complaint before RTC
Bulacan on 26 October 1999, alleging (1) PCIB’s violations of the terms and conditions of the REM
contract and the Promissory Notes by demanding exorbitant interest rates and unnecessary bank
charges without them being notified; and (2) irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings for failure to
comply with the posting and publication requirements as mandated by Act No. 3135. The spouses
Marcelo prayed for the nullification of the foreclosure proceedings and the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) against PCIB to prevent the latter from taking possession of the foreclosed
properties.
The trial court denied the application for a TRO for want of merit and ruled that the publication of the
Notice of Sale in The Times Newsweekly necessarily connoted that said publication was duly accredited
by the trial court, having been allowed by the Ex-Officio Sheriff. The trial court declared that the lack of
personal notice to the mortgagors is not a ground to set aside the foreclosure sale. PCIB, in its Motion to
Dismiss, contended that the Complaint filed was empty rhetoric designed to delay its right to take
possession of the foreclosed property even during the redemption period of one year. It added that the
matters are now fait accompli, for it had already foreclosed the properties and the one-year redemption
period had already lapsed. The spouses Marcelo opposed the above Motion by emphasizing the need
for a full-blown trial.
In its Decision, the trial court ruled for PCIB, sustaining the legal presumption of regularity in the
performance of Sheriff Ipac’s official duty in the foreclosure proceedings. It also affirmed PCIB’s
allegation of laches against spouses Marcelo, stating, among other things, that the action was but a
much-delayed afterthought following the spouses Marcelo’s neglect to seek an accurate accounting of
their loan obligation and their omission to redeem their properties within the period prescribed by law.
Marcelos filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR). The trial court then reversed itself and rendering the
extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings null and void for being violative of Act No. 3135. According to the
trial court, the provision of law requiring the posting of the notices of sale of a property subject of extra-
judicial foreclosure have not been faithfully complied with in the proceedings. Aggrieved, PCIB appealed
to CA.
The CA in its Decision dated 31 January 2007, overturned the appealed Order. The appellate court held
that the publication of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale at The Times Newsweekly, as recognized by the
Executive Judge of the trial court, was in compliance with the publication requirement for the
foreclosure sale.
The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated 29 August 2007, denied the petitioners’ Motion for
Extension of Time to file Motion for Reconsideration of its 31 January 2007 Decision, on the ground that
the time for filing the same was non-extendible; Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied for
being filed 11 days late on 12 March 2007. On 31 October 2007, the Court of Appeals resolved to deny
the spouses Marcelo’s Motion for Reconsideration filed on 19 September 2007 for being a second
motion for reconsideration that was proscribed under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court.
Issue: Is a Motion for Extension of Time to file MR non-extendible?
Held: Yes
Revisiting the records of this case would reveal that the case attained its finality as of 26 September
2007, and the same has already been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment. This Court, in a long
line of cases, has maintained that once the judgment has become final and executory, it can no longer
be disturbed, altered or modified.57 Except for clerical errors or mistakes, all the issues between the
parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest.58
Furthermore, this Court provides in Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court that a motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or a final order should be filed within the period for appeal, which is
within 15 days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. The 2002
Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals also states that unless an appeal or a motion for reconsideration
or new trial is filed within the 15-day reglementary period, the Court of Appeals’ decision becomes
final.62 Hence, the general rule is that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration is allowed. An exception, however, is provided in the case of Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc.
v. Maximo M. Japson, where the SC ruled that the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for
extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan
or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court. Such a
motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, which
may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested
Accordingly, motions for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed
only in connection with cases pending before this Court, which may in its sound discretion either grant
or deny the extension requested. No such motion may be filed before any lower courts. 64 In opting for
the liberal application of the rules in the interest of equity and justice, we cannot look with favor on a
course of action which would place the administration of justice in a straight jacket for then the result
would be a poor kind of justice if there would be justice at all.
