PLDT CUSTOMER SERVICE SUCKS

PLDT Customer Service sucks, WHY?

1. You cannot pay your bill through cash in their business offices. You have to make your payment through their PLDT payment machine where you will drop an envelope enclosing your payment. This would take time to post as they would check this a day after you pay (payment after 3PM), and would take some time to be posted. You can also make your payment to different bayad centers, but this also would take time since it is a third party. You can pay to their business offices through credit card but may oras eto, sometimes wala hindi pwede dahil offline or wala cashier.

2. If your phone gets temporarily disconnected, expect that after you made payment, you will still wait for days, even a week for them to restore your connection. Even if you call 171, it is useless. Ang sasabihin lang sayo ay "ii-endorse na lang po namin yun complaint nyo, antay na lng po tayo ng 24 hours to 48 hours." Pero lalagpas pa rin eto ng 48 hours.

3. PLDT's system-generated is so slow. Most reasons, if not all, you get from CSR are because they are system-generated, kaya mag-antay nalng.

4. Some CSR in their business offices are not customer friendly. Some do not possess good customer service qualities.

Here is my experience with PLDT Customer Service.

My phone has been temporarily disconnected since Thursday and until now (Monday) it has not been restored even if I settled the whole balance on the same day (Thurs) that my phone was disconnected. They will say that it will be restored 24 hours to 48 hours after you have made payment or after it gets posted. The problem is the posting usually takes 1 or 2 days after the payment because it is SYSTEM-GENERATED.

I made several calls on their 171 hotline to inquire about the reconnection status, but to no avail, because wala silang magagawa but to endorse my problem because again it is system-generated. One more thing, last Saturday, they also cut my DSL line, to think I have made payment two days before.

I went to their business office in Megamall. I talked to their CSR whose name is "John" or "Jean Behasa" (he was the CSR on duty that time, October 3, 2010, 7PM, counter #4). He is so arrogant and walang qualities ng pagiging isang customer service rep. Hindi man lang mag-greet ng good eveninng or what. Iba pa ang tono ng boses mag-sasagot sa mga inquiries ko. Dapat hindi siya sa customer service , dapat nasa backrooom siya nag-wowork because he cannot handle customer complaints. Tanong ko, bakit matagal ang pag-restore ng line to think Thursday pa ako nagbayad, and he said " Wala tayo magagawa dyan kasi system-generated yun, tapos wala daw kinilaman ang payment ko sa tagal ng pag restore ng line." Pano yun, sana hindi na lng ako nagbayad ,wala pala kinalaman yung payment." Hindi man lang mag-apologize sana dahil mabagal ang pagrestore ng line nila.

Inefficient and incompetent customer service. That is PLDT (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company).

ABS-CBN—Biased News

Until now, ABS-CBN still shows inclination to one side specially when it comes to politics. Last night I watched TV Patrol, and when the news was about the administration (government), I caught how Karen Davila's facial expression when she delivered the news. (See the video in youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kl27guH6a4 ). It seems that she does not believe what the administration is saying.

Another thing, when it comes to the candidacy of Noynoy Aquino, it seems that ABS-CBN are promoting his candidacy. One thing I noticed when ABS-CBN Sagip Kapamilya was distributing relief goods to the typhoon's victims, they are all wearing yellow and the plastic bags are in yellow, the color of Aquino, but not by ABS-CBN.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? IS ABS-CBN (NEWS) NOT FAIR?

ISANG SAGOT: THE GMA NEWS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS PRESIDENTIAL FORUM

I just watched Isang Tanong: The GMA Presidential Forum (GMA 7) where the presidentiables for the 2010 Election answered one question each from GMA newscasters, either from the academe or GMA Network's partners in 2010, and from the public through "youtube style" video, and one common question from Efren Penaflorida (2009 CNN Hero of the Year). The presidentiables attended the forum were:


Bayani Fernando
Benigno Aquino III
Gilbert Teodoro
JC De los Reyes
Joseph Estrada
Nicanor Perlas
Manny Villar
Eddie Villanueva


I was impressed with the answers of Bayani Fernando, Gilbert Teodoro; some answers of JC De los Reyes and Eddie Villanueva, a little of Estrada's answers and Villar's, and Perlas'. I just did not understand the answers of Noynoy because he answered so fast (medyo nabubulol). Bayani's and Gibo's answers were straight, with substance, and not safe. Also there were funny answers like when Erap was asked kung ano ang mga mali nyang ginawa nung naging presidente siya na hindi niya gagawin if elected again, and Erap said, wala siyang maisip na ginawa niyang pagkakamali, the answer and the way he answer were funny. Also with Bayani to the question Kung paano maging bayani? He said, nun pinangalanan siya ng tatay niya na Bayani.


Watch for the Part II of Isang Tanong: The GMA Presidential Forum on November 29, 2009 at around 10:30 p.m.

GILBERT "GIBO" TEODORO

As things become clearer on who will be running for presidency next year, I have decided to go for Gilbert "Gibo" Teodoro. He is, I think, the only candidate that has a firm stand on every issue. Everytime he answers questions or everytime he speaks, mapapahanga ka talaga. He expresses his ideas, plans, etc. eloquently, a very good speaker.

In one program (Probe) where he was asked what he will do when he gets elected kung may mga kasong isampa kay PGMA, his answer, hindi siya mangingi-alam sa kaso kasi ang judicial branch ng government ang bahala dito, at ang presidente ay nasa executive branch, kaya hindi dapat makisawsaw ang bagong presidente sa anumang kaso na dapat ang judicial branch ang humawak (kung baga, let the wheel of justice takes its course). This is a smart answer, kaya for other candidates who keep on saying that they promise to prosecute GMA when they get elected, are you running for a judicial position to decide the case of GMA?

Now, I am going to post an article about Gibo taken from Facebook. For those who believe that Gibo will be a good president for our country, you can join "Gilbert "Gibo" Teodoro for President Movement" group in Facebook or visit http://www.gibo.ph

LET US BUILD A BETTER AND GREATER PHILIPPINE NATION
WITH GILBERT “GIBO” TEODORO!

By: Mike Loyola

Defense Secretary Gilbert C. Tedoro, Jr. has shown qualities, qualifications and character that separate him from the rest of the aspirants for the presidency in 2010. While he was borne and raised from an affluent family, Gibo, as he is fondly called by relatives and friends, never boasted his social stature but instead manifested humility and kindness to all that have come to know him from childhood to these days.

Gibo gave great importance and value to education, hardwork, self-discipline and respect to others regardless of status as primary yardsticks in measuring his actions all his life.
He graduated Law at the University of the Philippines and eventually topped the Bar Examinations. He went to Harvard University for his Masters of Law and became a legal associate of the best known living lawyer of the land, former Justice Secretary and Solicitor-General Estelito Mendoza, where he had undergone training and honed his skills and knowledge in the intricacies of the legal profession.

He joined public service when he was first elected Congressman of the 1st District of Tarlac in 1998 and served three (3) successive terms for nine (9) years. He was the leader of the so called “Bright Boys of Congress” that included Chiz Escudero and Allan Cayetano now Senators of the land, which was the counterpart of the so called “Spice Boys of Congress” that included Migz Zubiri also a Senator now, Nonoy Andaya the incumbent Budget Secretary and Mike Defensor the notorious nemesis of NBN-ZTE whistle-blower Jun Lozada.

Unlike his colleagues in Congress who flaunted everything they do in the media (including Mike Defensor’s intervention for some suspected pick-girls in Quezon City who were apprehended by the police), Gibo who got high regards even from senior leaders and members of Congress, remained humble and quiet all through his nine (9) years in the House of Representatives. He was not afraid to stand on unpopular issues for as long as he believed them to be right and just such as, going against the impeachment of PGMA and supporting Charter Change that will reform the political system and institutions towards a parliamentary form of government.
Gibo is the youngest ever appointed Secretary of National Defense at forty-three (43) years old in August, 2007. But his youthfulness was never a liability but more of an asset for the Defense Department and the military establishment. He has introduced programs and reforms to address the serious concerns and inherent problems of the institution. He now commands highest respect and regard from the top-ranking officers to the lowliest enlisted man in the AFP.
He is not a hypocrite and ingrate, but instead has shown courage, loyalty and humility to announce that he will only run for President if he is chosen as the administration candidate; meaning, getting the endorsement of the very unpopular GMA which would be a “kiss of death” according to the opposition and many political analysts.

Gibo also showed independence of mind, upheld the importance of delicadeza, and invoked the importance of public service over and above personal, family and poliical interests when he severed ties with his own political party, the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC), whose benefactor is his own uncle Eduardo “Danding Cojuangco, Jr. and members include Senators Chiz Escudero and Loren Legarda, both aspiring presidentiables who declared themselves in public as oppositionists despite the fact that the benefactor and other leaders of NPC are known supporters and allies of PGMA, a very absurd and confusing political arrangement that does no benefit to our people at all but only to them.

All his experiences, training and background are more than enough to outclass the other political leaders who aspire for the presidency. But most important of all, Gibo Teodoro has the right character of a leader who can lead this nation into greatness and provide better lives to our people, a dream that never happened under previous administrations and Presidents. Such a dream would again be frustrated if the people commit the grave mistake of choosing someone because of his/her popularity enhanced by media projection and advertising promotions. Among the present presidential wannabes, other than GIBO, I say NOTA (None of the Above) can make our people’s dream a reality!

GO GO GIBO in 2010!

PLDT Watchpad Failed

Last week, when I learned that PLDT will have the Pacquiao-Cotto fight in their new PLDT watchpad, I registered immediately as it would only be available for those PLDT myDSL subscribers who would register before November 7, 2009. I downloaded all the necessary softwares so it would be ready for today's fight of Pacquiao; moreover I tested the watchpad days before.

I woke up today at around 7:30am to set up my PC as the fight will be shown at 9:00am. But as expected by many subscribers, there had been too many technical problems experienced earlier this morning. When it was already 8:00am, I could not connect with the watchpad, although my internet connection was, at that time, running smoothly. I checked one forum site to check if some subscribers also experienced some problem, truly there were people in that forum complaining. I called 171 and after 50 minutes I was able to speak with the CSR. The CSR told me that they were resetting something to have a better streaming and it would be solved before 10am.

After several attempts to connect with the watchpad, nakapasok ako at may streaming na ng fight (undercards) but the buffering would take 15 minutes to 30 minutes, and sometimes ma-didisconnect ako sa watchpad. Nun main fight na, hindi na ako nakabalik sa connection. Yun replay na nalng nung fight ni Pacquiao around 1:00 pm smooth na connection, tuloy-tuloy na.


Maraming subscribers pala ang nakaranas nito kahit yun dsl plan nila ay 1299 or higher. It was a total failure for PLDT again, lagi na lang may problema sa DSL nila, although this watchpad is an extra service, but they advertised that they will bring the fight live, and they are upgrading their system for this, at they have this condition na dapat mag-register before November 7 to see the fight, kayo yun mga subscribers nag-register before that time, yun iba nga siguro hindi na pumunta sa mga sinehan or bars o san pa man, dahil alam nila na meron sa PLDT watchpad.

PLDT should have anticipated the number of subscribers na manonood nito, alam naman nila kun ilan ang subscribers nila, at kun ilan dito ang nag-register sa watchpad before Nov 7. Kahit saan talaga ang PLDT pag may problema ang phone line and/or dsl, hindi agad maaksyonan. Kung mawawala and dial tone mo, asahan natin na linggo ang lilipas bago ma-restore ito uli, at pagtumawag ka sa 171, laging sagot, ginawan na po namin ng report, or minsan ina-upgrade lang po namin ang system, kaya ganun...

Eto pa, yun PLDT 171 hindi 24 hours, matagal na nga maka-contact hindi pa 24/7 , yun technical prob lang ang 24/7. Pero kahit 24/7, kun gabi na or madaling araw ka tumawag, wala rin magawa, kinabukasan pa ma-en-endorse.

Eto pa isa pa, yun mga business offices nila. One time pumunta ako sa PLDT megamall, dahil hanggang 8pm sila or minsan 9pm sila, expected ko pwede ka pa mag inquire sa customer service nila or pwede pa ang bills payment before 8pm or 9pm. Dumating ako ng 7pm dun, hindi na ako pinapasok ng card, wala daw transaction tinatapos na lang nila yun mga tao sa loob, what I thought 8am ang close or 9 pa, pero 7pm hindi ka na pwede magbayad or pumunta sa customer service nila... ganito rin sa SM North, at sa SM Cubao pldt business offices.


TO PLDT, please improve your services to your subscribers., masyadong low ang customer service niyo...

RIGHTS OF LESSEES AS THIRD PARTY IN A FORECLOSED PROPERTY

It was not a great day yesterday. I never thought that the unit we are leasing for our business and at the same time our residence will be taken by the bank, which we didn't know they are the new owner. The Writ of Possession, issued by the court was executed by the sheriff yesterday.

Last year, we leased a unit along Kamias Road, Quezon City to put up our business. It is a seven-unit property--four units are commercial/residential type, and the other three are residential only. Until last week when all of the tenants were served a five-day notice to vacate, the tenants had no knowledge that there has been a case regarding the property that we are leasing. All along during the period that the tenants leasing their units, the owner never informed about the court case.

Background of the Case. The property is now owned by a bank as decided by the court in a foreclosure suit. The owner, as I understand, made a loan at that bank and the collateral is the subject property. The owner defaulted in paying the loan so the bank instituted a foreclosure suit. The bank prevails in that case and as the highest bidder in the public auction, the property was awarded to the bank and at the same time transferred the ownership (by virtue of the new TCT). There were reconsiderations and appeals filed by the former owner and until recently the court issued a second writ of possession.

After the notice to vacate was served last week, the (former) owner told us that they were making steps to prevent the execution. So, as I have units in law, I am not yet a graduate, I researched about the rights of the lessees in this kind of case, as the lessees were in good faith as they were not aware of the case, and they had not defaulted in paying their rents, so what are their rights, I believe meron, we have the rights, as we are not involved in this case in the first place, in other words, Naiipit lang kami dito sa kaso na ito... I know that the Writ once issued, jt js ministerial on the part of the the sheriff to act on the writ, but there may be an exemption to this.

As it looks like the lessees are third parties in this case, I found cases, as decided by our Supreme Court, which have similarities in our situation, and enunciated the rights of lessees and the exemption to the ministerial duty of the sheriff to act on the writ of possession.


PNB vs. CA (G.R. 135219, January 17, 2002)

Sometime during the late 70s, the spouses Godofredo and Wilma Monsod obtained a loan from petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB). To secure their loan, the Monsods mortgaged to PNB a parcel of land located in Parañaque.

Due to Monsods' failure to pay their loan obligation, PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. At the auction sale of the subject real property, PNB was declared the highest bidder.

Upon expiration of the redemption period on July 12, 1985, ownership of the property was consolidated in PNB. Thereafter, TCT No. S-84843 was cancelled and TCT No. 99480 was issued in PNB's name.

On June 23, 1992, PNB filed an "Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Possession." Pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended, the trial court conducted an ex parte hearing. PNB's representative testified that the foreclosed property is occupied by one Ernesto Austria.

On August 28, 1992, the trial court granted PNB's petition and a writ of possession was issued.

On December 11, 1992, respondents Ernesto and Loreto Quintana Austria filed a "Motion for Intervention and to Recall and/or Stop the Enforcement of the Writ of Possession." The Austrias alleged that they are the actual occupants of the subject lot, which they purportedly bought from the Monsods as early as 1974. PNB allegedly knew of this fact even before it granted the loan to the Monsods, because the bank's credit investigators were advised of the same when they inspected the property in the summer of 1976. Consequently, the Austrias maintained that the issuance of the possessory writ ex parte was improper, since it will deprive them of their property without due process.

The basic issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not an ex-parte writ of possession issued pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended, can be enforced against a third person who is in actual possession of the foreclosed property and who is not in privity with the debtor/mortgagor.

Petitioner PNB submits that since it is the registered owner of the property, it is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right. The bank insists that it could rely on the title of the registered land which does not have any annotation of respondents' supposed rights.

Petitioner PNB likewise avers that the trial court could not now belatedly refuse to enforce the writ of possession against respondents. The trial court had already issued a total of four possessory writs directing the ouster of all occupants of the lot, including respondents herein.

On the other hand, respondents assert that the trial court correctly held that the writ of possession can only be implemented against the debtor/mortgagor and his successors-in-interest. Since respondents acquired their rights as owners of the property by virtue of a sale made to them by the Monsods prior to the bank's mortgage lien, respondents can not be dispossessed therefrom without due notice and hearing, through the simple expedient of an ex-parte possessory writ.

Supreme Court's Ruling
We agree with respondents (the Austrias). Under applicable laws and jurisprudence, they can not be ejected from the property by means of an ex-parte writ of possession.

The operative provision under Act No. 3135, as amended,25 is Section 6, which states:

Sec. 6. Redemption. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the special power hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his successors in interest or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after the date of the sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of section four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. (Italics ours)

Despite the evolutionary development of our procedural laws throughout the years, the pertinent rule in the Code of Civil Procedure26 remains practically unchanged. Particularly, Rule 39, Section 33, second paragraph, which relates to the right of possession of a purchaser of property in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale:

Sec. 33. x x x

Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the property at the time of levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor. (Italics ours)

"Thus, in Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court, we held that the obligation of a court to issue an ex-parte writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial once it appears that there is a third party in possession of the property who is claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. The same principle was inversely applied in a more recent case, where we ruled that a writ of possession may be issued in an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage, only if the debtor is in possession and no third party had intervened. Although the factual nuances of this case may slightly differ from the aforecited cases, the availing circumstances are undeniably similar – a party in possession of the foreclosed property is asserting a right adverse to the debtor/mortgagor and is a stranger to the foreclosure proceedings in which the ex-parte writ of possession was applied for.

It should be stressed that the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements are not without support in substantive law. Notably, the Civil Code protects the actual possessor of a property, to wit:

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.

Under the aforequoted provision, one who claims to be the owner of a property possessed by another must bring the appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery. The term “judicial process” could mean no less than an ejectment suit or reinvindicatory action, in which the ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly heard and adjudicated.

An ex-parte petition for issuance of a possessory writ under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is not, strictly speaking, a “judicial process” as contemplated above. Even if the same may be considered a judicial proceeding for the enforcement of one’s right of possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale, it is not an ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party “sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.” It should be emphasized that an ex-parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding authorized in an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage pursuant to Act 3135, as amended. Unlike a judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, any property brought within the ambit of the act is foreclosed by the filing of a petition, not with any court of justice, but with the office of the sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made.

As such, a third person in possession of an extrajudicially foreclosed realty, who claims a right superior to that of the original mortgagor, will have no opportunity to be heard on his claim in a proceeding of this nature. It stands to reason, therefore, that such third person may not be dispossessed on the strength of a mere ex-parte possessory writ, since to do so would be tantamount to his summary ejectment, in violation of the basic tenets of due process.

Besides, as earlier stressed, Article 433 of the Civil Code, cited above, requires nothing less than an action for ejectment to be brought even by the true owner. After all, the actual possessor of a property enjoys a legal presumption of just title in his favor, which must be overcome by the party claiming otherwise.

In the case at bar, petitioner PNB admitted that as early as 1990, it was aware that the subject lot was occupied by the Austrias. Yet, instead of bringing an action in court for the ejectment of respondents, it chose to simply file an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession pursuant to its alleged right as purchaser in the extra-judicial foreclosure sale. We cannot sanction this procedural shortcut. To enforce the writ against an unwitting third party possessor, who took no part in the foreclosure proceedings, would be tantamount to the taking of real property without the benefit of proper judicial intervention.

Consequently, it was not a ministerial duty of the trial court under Act No. 3135 to issue a writ of possession for the ouster of respondents from the lot subject of this instant case. The trial court was without authority to grant the ex-parte writ, since petitioner PNB’s right of possession under said Act could be rightfully recognized only against the Monsods and the latter’s successors-in-interest, but not against respondents who assert a right adverse to the Monsods.

Hence, the trial court cannot be precluded from correcting itself by refusing to enforce the writs it had previously issued. Its lack of authority to direct issuance of the writs against respondents assured that its earlier orders would never attain finality in the first place." (PNB v. CA ,G.R. No. 135219, January 17, 2002)


GADIL, complainant, vs. CORDOVA, Sheriff IV, respondent
(A.M. No. P-04-1832, February 23, 2005)

In 1996, complainant purchased Unit 9 of Trinar Townhouse on installment from Trinidad dela Cruz, President of Trinar Development Corporation. The complainant and her family occupied the unit in the same year.

In 2003, the complainant was informed that a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate were served by the respondent on the other unit owners of Trinar Townhouse. The writ was issued by the RTC Las Piñas City in LRC Case No. LP-02-0065 entitled "In Re: Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession Under Act No. 3135, As Amended By Act No. 4118, Trinar Development (Spouses Deogracias Aranda and Perpetua Aranda), Union Bank of the Philippines, Petitioner."

Complainant subsequently learned that the unit she purchased was one of the townhouses sought to be recovered by Union Bank from Spouses Deogracias and Perpetua Aranda. On January 23, 2003, the complainant sent a letter to the respondent through her lawyer to inform him that: 1) the Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate which were addressed to spouses Deogracias and Perpetua Aranda were not binding on the Complainant as she was not a party to the transaction between the spouses Aranda and Union Bank; 2) the Complainant did not derive ownership over Unit 9 of Trinar Townhouse from the spouses Aranda; and 3) there is a pending case filed at the HLURB by the unit owners against Union Bank.

Despite the complainant's letter, respondent visited the complainant's residence on January 24, 2003 together with Union Bank's representative, security guards, a barangay official and some armed men. After reaching the residence, the respondent ordered the complainant to vacate and surrender possession of the townhouse unit.

The complainant informed respondent that she had already paid for the unit and pleaded for mercy since she and one of her children were suffering from fever. She requested that she be given sufficient time to verify why she was being ousted from her home. Respondent agreed to leave her after the complainant signed a paper stating that she was to vacate the townhouse on January 27, 2003.

Thereafter, complainant filed a motion to issue a cease and desist order with the HLURB. She also sent a letter to respondent requesting for the deferment of their eviction. Despite this, the respondent proceeded with the eviction and padlocked her house on January 27, 2003.

A cease and desist order was issued by the HLURB on January 31, 2003.

On January 31, 2003, complainant filed with the Las Piñas RTC an Opposition to an ex-parte Motion (For Issuance of a Break-Open Order) with a supplemental motion to quash the writ of possession issued by it. On February 3, 2003, the RTC of Las Piñas City, acting on complainant's Opposition, declared the writ of possession it issued as unenforceable against complainant. The court observed that the complainant was a third person in actual possession of the foreclosed property and not in privity with Trinar Development Corporation and spouses Aranda. The court concluded that the complainant could not be ejected from the property by means of an ex-parte writ of possession as this would violate her right to due process.

Supreme Court's Ruling
While the respondent correctly asserts that it is his(sheriff) ministerial duty to act on a writ of execution, this duty has its limitations. As ruled in Casano v. Magat, a sheriff ought to know what is inherently right and inherently wrong. In that case, the judgment debtor's lawyer informed the sheriff that the mortgage contract omitted to contain a stipulation authorizing the judgment creditor to extrajudicially foreclose the property. Despite the complainant's protestations, the sheriff proceeded with the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The Court determined that the sheriff was administratively liable and pointed out that, though the issue may have been too technical for the sheriff to decide on the spot, it would have been prudent for him to have brought the protest to the attention of the court concerned. We likewise declare that the respondent's carrying out the writ of execution despite the complainant's assertions without bringing the matter to the attention of the issuing judge constitutes simple misconduct. Indeed, the respondent forgets that he must not only act with promptness in implementing a writ of execution but must also perform this duty with the prudence, caution and attention that careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Ronald C. Cordova is found GUILTY of simple misconduct and is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine with a WARNING that commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

UY v. LAND BANK ( G.R. No. 136100. July 24, 2000)

In the case, Land Bank filed before the MTCC a complaint for unlawful detainer against Felipe Uy. The bank claimed ownership of two parcels of land and sought the ejectment of petitioner, the occupant of the premises.

The properties were originally owned by a certain Tia Yu. Tia Yu, through a special power of attorney, authorized Gold Motors Parts Corporation to mortgage the same as security for a loan extended by the bank to Gold Motors. Gold Motors mortgaged the properties to Land Bank but it eventually defaulted on the loan, prompting Land Bank to initiate foreclosure proceedings. The highest bidder in the foreclosure sale, Land Bank was subsequently issued a certificate of sale in its favor. The defendant, Felipe Uy, averred that he furnished Tia Yu the materials used to construct the house on the land but Tia Yu failed to pay fully for the value of said materials. Thus, he and Tia Yu agreed that the former shall occupy the house and apply the rent as payment to the balance of Tia Yu’s debt amounting to P400,000.00. The terms of their agreement were later put into writing in a Lease Contract. On March 31, 1989, the MTCC rendered a decision finding in Uy’s favor. The court found that at the time the mortgage was constituted the bank was aware that petitioner was leasing the property.

The Supreme Court says "In respect of the lease on the foreclosed property, the buyer at the foreclosure sale merely succeeds to the rights and obligations of the pledgor-mortgagor subject to the provisions of Article 1676 of the Civil Code on its possible termination.This article provides that:

“[t]he purchaser of a piece of land which is under a lease that is not recorded in the Registry of Property may terminate the lease, save when there is a stipulation to the contrary in the contract of sale, or when the purchaser knows of the existence of the lease.” In short, the buyer at the foreclosure sale, as a rule, may terminate an unregistered lease except when it knows of the existence of the lease.

The MTCC in this case found it difficult to believe that respondent did not know of the existence of the lease since it was the bank’s practice to conduct periodic inspections on the property.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the foregoing is that Land Bank knew of the lease and, under Article 1676 of the Civil Code, it may not terminate the same.

The rights, therefore, acquired by the defendant as lessee of the estate above referred to, which were known to the estate above referred to, which were known to the plaintiff at the time of purchasing it, cannot be prejudiced, as they cannot be affected by such a transfer.

The plaintiff is not, therefore, entitled to terminate the lease in question, and having been subrogated into the legal situation of the lessor, created by the contract of lease which was known to [plaintiff], it is [plaintiff’s] duty to respect it in toto.

The issuance of the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) over the properties in respondent's name does not entitle it to disregard the lease. A TCT is mere evidence of ownership, and ownership may be subjected to limitations imposed by law, in this case, by Article 1676 of the Civil Code."

I believe as innocent lessees in this case, we have some rights, but unfortunately the sheriff and the bank decided to enforce the writ, so the tenants had nothing to do but to vacate their units.

Luckily, we found a new unit just beside the property to continue our life, but we cannot immediately move since it needs to be cleaned and to construct some little details in the house, maybe after two days we can move to the new rented unit.

For the meantime, the bank allowed us to stay in our current unit which the bank now possessed, since we have business, and we informed the bank and showed the new unit to them on the same day the writ was executed, but some of our things ay nasa labas na hindi binalik nung pinapavacate na yun mga tenants. Tomorrow may be we can transfer to the new unit, hopefully.

MORE PICS FROM BAGUIO -PART2