Search 80 million documents Upload EN

0 0 RELATED TITLES
Home 149 views

Mallari vs. GSIS

Saved
Uploaded by Sam Leynes on Jun 28,
2012
Bestsellers
Full description

Case Digest Legal PCGG vs. 92. CIR v

Books
Ethics Sandiganbayan Pilipinas
Save Embed Share Print

Audiobooks

Download Search document

Magazines

Documents
Certiorari; Period to file.

MALLARI, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

Sheet Music G.R. No. 157659 January 25, 2010
BERSAMIN, J.:

FACTS:

In 1968, the petitioner obtained two loans totaling P34,000.00 from respondent GSIS. To secure the performance,
he mortgaged two parcels of land registered under his and his wife Marcelina Mallari’s names. However, he paid
GSIS about ten years after contracting the obligations only P10,000.00 and P20,000.00

Nearly three years later (1984), GSIS applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage by reason of
his failure to settle his account . He requested an updated computation of his outstanding account. He persuaded
the sheriff to hold the publication of the foreclosure to await action on his pending request for final accounting (that
is, taking his payments of P30,000.00 made in 1978 into account). GSIS responded to his request. It finally
commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against him because he had meanwhile made no further
payments.

The petitioner sued GSIS (prelim injunction). The RTC decided in his favor, nullifying the extrajudicial foreclosure
and auction sale. GSIS appealed to the CA, which reversed the RTC. Petitioner elevated the CA decision to this
Court via petition for review on certiorari

This Court denied his petition for review and motion for reconsideration. As a result, the CA decision became final
and executory, rendering unassailable both the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale.

Because of the petitioner’s request for an extension of time to vacate the properties, GSIS acceded to the request.
Yet, the petitioner did not voluntarily vacate the properties, but instead filed a MR and/or to quash the writ of
execution and motion to hold GSIS in contempt of court for painting the fence of the properties during the pendency
of his said motion.

To prevent the Presiding Judge of Branch 44 of the RTC from resolving the pending incidents, GSIS moved to
inhibit him for alleged partiality towards the petitioner as borne out by his failure to act on the motion for
reconsideration and/or to quash writ of execution for more than a year from their filing, praying that the case be re-
raffled to another branch of the RTC. The petitioner sought reconsideration but the Presiding Judge of Branch 48
Read
on February books,
11, 2002 audiobooks,
denied and more
his motion for reconsideration.
Related Scribd
titles
½
By petition for certiorari View
dated March 15, 2002 filed in the CA, the petitioner assailed the orders of February 11,
GET
2002, July 30,—2001
On the App Motion
(denied Store for Contempt), October 21, 1999 (Granted W rit of execution cum writ of
possession), and October 8, 1999. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the Petition for Certiorari in CA Was Filed Beyond Reglementary Period

HELD:
YES. Considering that the motion for reconsideration dated August 17, 2001 denied by the order dated February 11,
2002 was in reality and effect a prohibited second motion for reconsideration vis-à-vis the orders dated October
21, 1999 and October 8, 1999, the assailed orders dated July 30, 2001, October 21, 1999, and October 8, 1999
could no longer be subject to attack by certiorari. Thus, the petition for certiorari filed only in March 2002 was
already improper and tardy for being made beyond the 60-day limitation defined in Section 4, Rule 65, 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, as amended, which requires a petition for certiorari to be filed “not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution,” or, in case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,
whether such motion is required or not, “the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the
said motion.” It is worth emphasizing that the 60-day limitation is considered inextendible, because the limitation
has been prescribed to avoid any unreasonable delay that violates the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy
disposition of their cases.

Case Digest Legal PCGG vs. 92. CIR vs. Mercado v. Regala vs.
Ethics
WHEREFORE, we Sandiganbayan
deny the petition for review on Pilipinas
certiorari Shell
for lack of merit. Vitriolo Sandiganbay
Digest

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.

Read Free For 30 Days

No Commitment. Cancel anytime.

Share this document

Related Interests

Certiorari Foreclosure Social Institutions Society

Public Law

Documents Similar To Mallari vs. GSIS

Case Digest Legal PCGG vs. 92. CIR vs. Pilipinas Mercado
Ethics Sandiganbayan Shell UPLOADED
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY Cy Pang
Flordeliza Jamila Vince Leido Archie Torres

More From Sam Leynes

UCPB vs. Sps. Uy (Jan Alpajora vs. Calayan Mercene vs. Gsis (Jan Ladines v
2018) (Jan 2018) 2018) (Jan2016
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY UPLOADED
Sam Leynes Sam Leynes Sam Leynes Sam Le

ABOUT SUPPORT LEGAL

About Scribd Help / FAQ Terms

Press Accessibility Privacy

Our blog Purchase help Copyright

Join our team! AdChoices

Contact Us Publishers

Invite Friends

Gifts

Copyright © 2019 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Site Directory . Site Language: English