Lower court implements ruling despite restraining order from appellate court

Despite a Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling to the contrary, a lower court judge has proceeded in implementing his order with the help of policemen and sheriffs.

The case involves the foreclosure by Allied Banking Corp. of Ever Gotesco shopping mall in Las Piñas for failure to pay its loan to the bank in the amount of P987.4 million.

Allied Bank was granted a writ of possession by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 275, of Las Piñas over the property after Ever Gotesco failed to redeem it on Feb. 3, 2000 as contained in the certificate of sale.

It (Allied) took control and possession of the property by virtue of the writ which was fully implemented on Sept. 28, 2001.

Ever filed a petition for certiorari before the CA on Oct. 2, 2001.

Meanwhile, RTC Las Piñas, Branch 253, Judge Jose Caoibes, Jr. issued a resolution on Feb. 18, 2002 denying Allied Bank’s motion to lift the injunction on a complaint filed by Ever for annulment of foreclosure proceedings.

The complaint, filed by Ever on Feb. 4, 2000 seeks the annulment of foreclosure proceedings with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to prevent Allied from taking over actual possession of Ever Gotesco RTC Branch 254 issued a 20-day TRO and later, a writ of injunction against Allied.

Ever Gotesco also filed a motion to restore possession over the property and/or maintains status quo, which was opposed by Allied in a petition filed before the same court.

On March 25, 2002, Caoibes issued an order granting Ever’s motion to restore possession and ordered its immediate implementation.

However, the next day or on March 26, the CA issued a TRO preventing the implementation of Caoibes’ order of March 25, 2002. Despite the CA’s TRO, policemen evicted the security guards of Allied, allowed the removal of goods from the premises and totally stripped the bank of possession over the property.

The policemen also implemented the order from 5:30 to 9:30 p.m., which was beyond the reasonable hours which the law provides for the implementation of court orders, decisions or resolutions.

Allied lawyers said the status quo to be observed should be the situation before the issuance of the March 25 order of Caoibes, with the bank in complete possession of the property as absolute owner.