When Courts Overstep: The Illegality of Interfering With Appellate Jurisdiction Through Lis Pendens Cancellati

A notice of lis pendens is a powerful legal tool that alerts the world that a piece of property is the subject of an ongoing court case. It protects a party's interest in the property while litigation is pending. But what happens when a judge, other than the one handling the case, orders its cancellation? The Supreme Court addressed this in Brizuela v. Judge Mendiola (A.M. No. RTJ-00-1560, July 5, 2000), a case that serves as a clear warning against judicial overreach and provides important lessons on jurisdiction and procedural fairness.

The Facts: A Property Dispute and a Questionable Order

The case began with a credit facility granted by Citibank to Martin Brizuela, secured by his property in Makati. A dispute over the amount owed led the Brizuelas to file a case for accounting and injunction against the bank. After losing that case, they appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 45243). Citibank then foreclosed on the property, and a third party, ICCS, bought it at an auction.

The Brizuelas filed another case to annul the auction sale and the title issued to ICCS. This case (Civil Case No. 94-1394) was raffled to Branch 66 of the Makati RTC. When that case was dismissed, the Brizuelas again appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 47870).

To protect their interest during the appeal, the Brizuelas annotated a notice of lis pendens on the property's title. Meanwhile, ICCS filed a separate petition for a writ of possession, which was raffled to Branch 63 of the Makati RTC, presided over by Judge Ruben A. Mendiola. When ICCS later filed a motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens, Judge Mendiola granted it with what the complainant called "indecent haste."

The Issue: Did the Judge Have the Power to Cancel the Notice?

The central question was whether Judge Mendiola had the authority to order the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The Supreme Court's answer was a resounding no.

The Ruling: A Clear Case of Jurisdictional Interference

The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Mendiola acted without jurisdiction. The notice of lis pendens was annotated in connection with Civil Case No. 94-1394, which was pending before Branch 66, not Branch 63. More importantly, that case was already on appeal with the Court of Appeals.

The Court explained that the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is merely incidental to the pending action. Therefore, the power to cancel it belongs to the court where the main case is pending. Since the case was on appeal, it was the Court of Appeals that had jurisdiction over the matter. By ordering the cancellation, Judge Mendiola improperly interfered with the business of the appellate court.

The Court also found a procedural violation. The motion for cancellation was filed on September 20, 1995, and set for hearing on the morning of September 22, 1995. This violated the three-day notice requirement under the former Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion was a litigious one, and the Brizuelas had a right to contest the relief sought. The failure to serve them with proper notice rendered the motion a mere scrap of paper that the judge should have disregarded.

The Clerk of Court's Role: A False Certification

The complaint also involved the branch clerk of court, Atty. Josefina E. Costin. She issued a certification stating that an order granting an alias writ of possession had become final and executory because no appeal was filed. However, the Brizuelas had, in fact, filed a notice of appeal. While the appeal was later dismissed for being filed late, it was still pending at the time the certification was issued. The Court found that even without malice, the clerk's carelessness in issuing a false certification warranted a reprimand.

Practical Takeaways

• Jurisdiction follows the case. A court cannot act on matters incidental to a case that is not pending before it, especially when that case is already on appeal.
• Respect appellate jurisdiction. Trial courts must not issue orders that interfere with cases already elevated to a higher court.
• Procedural rules are mandatory. The three-day notice requirement for litigious motions is not a mere suggestion. A motion filed without proper notice can be treated as a scrap of paper.
• Accuracy in certifications is non-negotiable. Court personnel must ensure that certifications are accurate, as false statements can lead to administrative liability.
• Remedies exist for improper orders. A party aggrieved by an unlawful order can seek relief through a petition for certiorari, though success is not guaranteed.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.