ASG Law

Tag: Administrative Order No. 3

  • Docket Fees and Notarial Foreclosure: Clarifying the Rules Before 2000

    The Supreme Court in Ravago v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company clarified that prior to January 15, 2000, extrajudicial foreclosures conducted by a notary public were not required to be filed with the court, and thus, were exempt from paying docket fees. This ruling hinged on the interpretation of Administrative Order No. 3 and its subsequent amendments, specifically A.M. No. 99-10-05-0. The Court emphasized that the obligation to pay legal fees for notarial foreclosures only arose after the effectivity of A.M. No. 99-10-05-0. This means that foreclosures completed before this date, where a notary public was involved, are not rendered invalid simply for the non-payment of docket fees.

    Docket Fees and Foreclosure: Did the Bank Skip a Step?

    Benjamin Ravago and his wife took loans from Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company amounting to P25,000,000.00. These loans were secured by a mortgage on their property. When the couple defaulted, the bank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings through a notary public. Ravago argued that the foreclosure was invalid because the bank did not comply with Administrative Order No. 3 by failing to pay the required docket fees. The core legal question was whether Administrative Order No. 3, before its amendment, applied to extrajudicial foreclosures conducted by a notary public.

    The Supreme Court, siding with the bank, referenced the earlier case of China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, stating that extrajudicial foreclosures handled by a notary public do not fall under Administrative Order No. 3 because they are not filed with the court. The Court underscored that Administrative Order No. 3 was designed to guide executive judges and clerks of court in managing court affairs, particularly those related to the sheriff’s duties. The decision emphasized a key distinction: prior to the amendments introduced by A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, notarial foreclosures operated outside the purview of this administrative order.

    To fully grasp the Court’s reasoning, a comparison between Administrative Order No. 3 and A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 is essential. Administrative Order No. 3 focused on the responsibilities of the Executive Judge in managing the courts and supervising the Clerk of Court, who also acts as the Ex-Officio Sheriff. It specifically directed that applications for extra-judicial foreclosure be filed with the Executive Judge through the Clerk of Court. The order did not mention notaries public or foreclosures conducted under their direction. A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 expanded the scope to include the issuance of commissions to notaries public and the enforcement of their duties. It mandated that all applications for extra-judicial foreclosure, whether under the direction of the sheriff or a notary public, be filed with the Executive Judge.

    The significance of this amendment is that, prior to January 15, 2000, the prevailing rule did not require the filing of notarial foreclosures with the court. Therefore, the payment of legal fees, as prescribed under Section 7(c), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, did not apply to these types of foreclosures. The Court in RPRP Ventures Management & Development Corporation v. Judge Guadiz, Jr., et. al. affirmed this interpretation. The Court clarified that Section 7(c), Rule 141 pertains to petitions filed before the Office of the Ex-Officio Sheriff, not those filed before a notary public. However, after the effectivity of A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC on August 16, 2004, the requirement for payment of legal fees now applies to both sheriffs and notaries public.

    FAQs

    What was the central issue in the Ravago case? The core issue was whether a notarial foreclosure conducted before 2000 was invalid due to non-payment of docket fees.
    What is Administrative Order No. 3? Administrative Order No. 3 is a directive outlining procedures for extrajudicial foreclosure, initially focused on sheriff-led proceedings.
    What is A.M. No. 99-10-05-0? A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 is an amendment to Administrative Order No. 3, expanding its coverage to include foreclosures by notaries public.
    When did A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 take effect? A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 took effect on January 15, 2000.
    Did the Ravago case involve a foreclosure before or after the amendment? The foreclosure in the Ravago case occurred in 1999, before the effectivity of A.M. No. 99-10-05-0.
    Who is responsible for paying legal fees for foreclosures now? Under current rules, both sheriffs and notaries public are responsible for collecting legal fees for foreclosures.
    What was the impact of the China Banking case on this issue? The China Banking case established that Administrative Order No. 3 did not initially apply to notarial foreclosures.
    How does this ruling affect current foreclosure proceedings? The Ravago ruling clarifies the rules before 2000; current foreclosures are subject to different rules requiring fee payment regardless of who handles it.

    The Ravago case provides crucial insight into the application of foreclosure regulations before the year 2000, highlighting that notarial foreclosures were not subject to the same requirements as sheriff-led proceedings concerning payment of fees. This distinction, rooted in the historical evolution of administrative orders, impacts the validity of foreclosures completed during that period. Understanding this history is essential for legal professionals dealing with older real estate transactions.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Ravago v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 188739, August 5, 2015

  • Sheriff Misconduct: When Can a Sheriff Be Held Liable?

    Sheriff Accountability: Upholding Integrity in Extrajudicial Foreclosure

    TLDR: This case highlights the importance of following proper procedures in extrajudicial foreclosures. A sheriff’s failure to adhere to these procedures, especially when it involves potential mishandling of funds and loss of documents, can lead to disciplinary action, including suspension.

    A.M. No. P-92-747, October 16, 1997

    Introduction

    Imagine losing your property due to a foreclosure process riddled with irregularities. The role of a sheriff, as an officer of the court, is to ensure that such processes are conducted fairly and transparently. But what happens when the sheriff themselves is the one who deviates from established procedures? This case of Atty. Jesus R. Llamado vs. Armando Ravelo delves into the accountability of a sheriff who failed to follow the proper steps in an extrajudicial foreclosure, raising questions about integrity and adherence to duty.

    The case originated from a report filed by Atty. Jesus Llamado, then Clerk of Court III and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, regarding irregularities committed by Deputy Sheriff Armando Ravelo in the extrajudicial foreclosure of a property owned by Nancy N. Lazo. The core issue revolves around the sheriff’s failure to properly docket the foreclosure petition, potential mishandling of funds intended for filing and publication fees, and the subsequent loss of important documents related to the foreclosure.

    Legal Context

    Extrajudicial foreclosure in the Philippines is governed primarily by Act No. 3135, as amended. This law outlines the procedure for foreclosing a real estate mortgage without judicial intervention. Crucially, Administrative Order No. 3, dated October 19, 1984, provides detailed guidelines for the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages. This order specifies the duties of the Executive Judge and the Clerk of Court (acting as Ex-Officio Sheriff) in these proceedings.

    Here are some key provisions from Administrative Order No. 3:

    • “All application for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage under Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, and Act 1508, as amended, shall be filed with the Executive Judge, through the Clerk of Court who is also the Ex-Officio Sheriff;”
    • “Upon receipt of an application for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage, it shall be the duty of the Office of the Sheriff to: receive and docket said application and to stamp the same with the corresponding file number and date of filing; collect the filing fees therefor and issue the corresponding official receipt…”

    These provisions are designed to ensure transparency and accountability in the foreclosure process. By requiring proper docketing, fee collection, and raffle of cases among deputy sheriffs, the system aims to prevent irregularities and protect the rights of both mortgagors and mortgagees.

    Case Breakdown

    The sequence of events leading to the administrative case against Deputy Sheriff Ravelo unfolded as follows:

    1. Atty. Estanislao L. Cesa, representing the mortgagee Helen D. Gamboa, requested Deputy Sheriff Ravelo to handle the extrajudicial foreclosure of Nancy Lazo’s property.
    2. Atty. Cesa allegedly gave Sheriff Ravelo P4,900.00 for filing and publication expenses.
    3. Sheriff Ravelo submitted a Certificate of Sale to Atty. Llamado (Clerk of Court) for approval, but the application for foreclosure lacked a docket number and date of receipt.
    4. Atty. Llamado returned the documents to Sheriff Ravelo, pointing out the procedural lapses.
    5. When Atty. Llamado requested the documents again, Sheriff Ravelo could only produce three out of the original eight, claiming the rest were lost.
    6. This prompted Atty. Llamado to report the irregularities to the Office of the Court Administrator.

    The Supreme Court, in its resolution, highlighted the gravity of Sheriff Ravelo’s actions. The Court emphasized that Ravelo, despite knowing the proper procedure, proceeded with the foreclosure process without ensuring proper docketing and payment of fees. The Court found Ravelo’s explanation for the missing documents unconvincing and suggested that he may have misappropriated the funds given to him by Atty. Cesa.

    The Court stated:

    “We are inclined to believe that the amount of P4,900.00 was received by the respondent sheriff from Atty. Cesa as related by the complainant in his Report addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator.“

    Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of integrity in the sheriff’s role:

    “Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice. As agents of the law, high standards are expected of them. More importantly, the conduct and behavior of every person connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but must, and above all else, be above suspicion.“

    Practical Implications

    This case serves as a potent reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in extrajudicial foreclosures. It underscores the accountability of sheriffs and other court personnel in ensuring transparency and fairness in these proceedings. Failure to follow the prescribed procedures can lead to disciplinary action, including suspension, and potentially even criminal charges if mishandling of funds is involved.

    Key Lessons

    • Strict Compliance: Sheriffs must strictly adhere to the procedures outlined in Act 3135 and Administrative Order No. 3 regarding extrajudicial foreclosures.
    • Accountability: Sheriffs are accountable for their actions and can be held liable for misconduct if they fail to follow proper procedures.
    • Transparency: All stages of the foreclosure process must be transparent, with proper documentation and accounting of fees.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is an extrajudicial foreclosure?

    A: It is a foreclosure process conducted outside of court, based on a power of attorney included in the mortgage contract.

    Q: What is Act 3135?

    A: It is the law governing extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages in the Philippines.

    Q: What are the responsibilities of a sheriff in an extrajudicial foreclosure?

    A: The sheriff is responsible for receiving and docketing the application, collecting fees, ensuring compliance with requirements, conducting the auction sale, and issuing the certificate of sale.

    Q: What happens if a sheriff fails to follow the proper procedures?

    A: The sheriff can be subject to administrative sanctions, such as suspension or dismissal, and potentially criminal charges if there is evidence of fraud or misappropriation of funds.

    Q: What should a property owner do if they suspect irregularities in a foreclosure process?

    A: They should immediately consult with a lawyer to explore their legal options, which may include filing a complaint with the court or the Office of the Court Administrator.

    Q: What is the role of the Clerk of Court in extrajudicial foreclosures?

    A: The Clerk of Court acts as the Ex-Officio Sheriff, overseeing the process and ensuring compliance with the law and administrative orders.

    ASG Law specializes in litigation and dispute resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.