Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > July 1975 Decisions > A.M. No. 32-MJ July 18, 1975 - LEON FRANADA, ET AL. v. VICENTE M. ERICTA, JR.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. 32-MJ. July 18, 1975.]

LEON FRANADA, Et Al., Complainants, v. MUN. JUDGE VICENTE M. ERICTA, JR., Respondent.

[A.M. No. 33-MJ. July 18, 1975.]

VERONICA P. ULSA, Complainant, v. MUN. JUDGE VICENTE M. OBLENA, JR., Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Two administrative cases were filed against the respondent municipal judge, the first of which was based on a telegram complaint charging that respondent was involved in a logging operation and the second, on the allegation made by complainant Ulsa that respondent prevented her laborers from entering her logging area and that respondent engaged in logging business without the prior permission from the proper department head.

Three of the four supposed complainants in the first case disowned any knowledge of or participation in the sending of the telegram complaint and denied the truth of the contents thereof. The fourth complainant was never contacted by the court’s process server and the lawyer who was to appear in his behalf withdrew as counsel one day before the scheduled hearing.

In the preliminary inquiry of the second case, which proceeded notwithstanding complainant’s motion to withdraw, the complainant testified that she had no personal knowledge that respondent went to her logging area to frighten her laborers and that although the respondent was granted a private woodland registration certificate over his titled land, he had not actually taken any logs therefrom.

The Supreme Court dismissed the first case because no evidence whatsoever was presented to substantiate the telegram complaint. It also dismissed the second case because the registration of ownership of forest land required by law and respondent’s compliance therewith needed no prior permission from the district judge. Furthermore, respondent has not transgressed Canons 24 and 25 of the Canon of Judicial Ethics as there is no evidence that he had made a personal investment or engaged in the logging business.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE CASES; DISMISSAL THEREOF; FAILURE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE COMPLAINT WARRANTS DISMISSAL OF CASE. — The burden of proof in an administrative case filed against a municipal judge rests upon the complainants and such case should be dismissed where no evidence whatsoever was presented to substantiate the complaint. Thus, the first of the two cases at bar should be dismissed because three of the four supposed complainants in the telegram complaint disowned any knowledge of or participation in the sending of the telegram and the fourth complainant, whom the court’s process server failed to locate for four times, failed to appear on the scheduled date of hearing.

2. JUDGES; DUTIES; MUNICIPAL JUDGE NEED NOT SECURE PRIOR PERMISSION FROM DISTRICT JUDGE IN REGISTRATION OF OWNERSHIP OF FOREST LAND. — Section 1829 of the Administrative Code requires a private owner of land containing timber to register his title to the same with the Director of Forestry. Under this provision of law the judicial office held by the respondent municipal judge has no hearing on his ownership of forest land the registration of which he is duty bound to accomplish, this being so, his compliance with the provision by registering his title as a "private owner of land containing timber . . ." needed no prior permission from the District Judge.

3. JUDICIAL ETHICS, CANNON 24 AND 25; PROHIBITION AGAINST BUSINESS PROMOTIONS AND PERSONAL INVESTMENT; NO VIOLATION OF CANONS IN CASE AT BAR. — A municipal judge who secured a private woodland registration certificate without the prior permission from the District Judge does not, thereby, transgress Canon 24 and 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics prohibiting judges from engaging in business promotions and making personal investments in enterprises which are apt to be involved in litigation in his court, where there is no evidence that he had made a personal investment of engaged in the logging business which "involves the idea of a continuance or repetition of like acts."


D E C I S I O N


CASTRO, J.:


These are two (2) administrative cases against Vicente M. Oblena, Jr., Municipal Judge of Maria Aurora, Quezon.

In Administrative Matter No. 32 MJ, Judge Oblena, Jr. was charged on August 18, 1972 purportedly by four complainants, namely, Leon Franada, Ciriaco Manangan, Huarlito Mallari and Cresencio Basilio, in a telegram-complaint which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"REPORTING CONTINUED LOGGING OPERATION OF BALER FOREST PRODUCTS INCORPORATED MARIA AURORA QUEZON WITH DIRECT CONNIVANCE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INCLUDED MUNICIPAL JUDGE VICENTE OBLENA AND PATROLMAN BEN ALATAC AND ALVAREZ."cralaw virtua1aw library

However, in the ensuing investigation conducted by Judge Ernesto P. Valencia of the Court of First Instance of Aurora Subprovince, to whom the complaint was referred for inquiry as to the alleged involvement of Judge Oblena, the supposed complainants Leon Franada, Ciriaco Manangan and Warlito (not "Huarlito") Mallari disowned any knowledge of or participation in the sending of the telegram-complaint and likewise denied the truth of the contents thereof. As to the complainant Cresencio Espiritu, the court’s process-server failed to contact him for four (4) times (October 25 & 26 and November 2 & 3, 1972) at his residence in Poblacion, Maria Aurora, Quezon; per the returns in the subpoenas, Espiritu had reportedly left for Manila, but without a specific forwarding address in Manila. 1 One Atty. Julio Bautista of Cubao, Quezon City wired the deputy clerk of court informing him that he would appear for Cresencio Espiritu, but on November 2, 1972, one day before the scheduled hearing, Atty. Bautista wired his withdrawal as counsel for "reasons privileged." Upon motion of the respondent Judge Oblena, Judge Valencia ordered the case submitted for resolution; in his report, Judge Valencia recommends that the case be dropped for lack of evidence.

The burden of proof rests upon the complainants, 2 and since no evidence whatsoever was presented to substantiate the telegram-complaint, the complaint in Administrative Matter No. 32 MJ should be dismissed. 3

In Administrative Matter No. 33 MJ, Veronica P. Ulsa of San Luis, Quezon complained that

". . . while entering in my licensed area under PWR 2588 and 2589 at Sitio Diomulok, Barrio Punglo, Maria Aurora, Quezon way back on January 24, 1972 with my equipments, was stopped by said Judge Vicente Oblena-using his authority as a judge. He frightened my laborers in going to the area. He is using some documents. Please send investigator immediately so that justice will prevail. I am ready to testify in any court or investigation that may arise. I have complete evidence." 4

In his answer, the respondent Judge denied the material allegations of the complaint, and averred that he had never gone to the barrio of Punglo; that he attended office of Dipaculao, Quezon on January 24, 1972 from eight o’clock in the morning to five o’clock in the afternoon; and that he has no knowledge of any document contradicting the complainant’s document, except possibly one that he had notarized for Enrique Mendoza, a document which revoked a special power of attorney which had previously authorized the complainant to cut timber; and that Enrique Mendoza had also executed another special power of attorney in favor of one Elizabeth Trinidad.

At the start of the preliminary inquiry, the counsel for the complainant moved to withdraw the complaint on the Found of lack of witnesses whose testimony would not be hearsay particularly as to the allegation in the complaint that the respondent had prevented the complainant’s laborers from entering her logging area, and on the further ground that the complainant could not secure either the proper certification to prove her charge that the respondent had engaged in business without prior permission from the Secretary of Justice, or a certification that "the respondent did not file with the Bureau of Forestry the said special permission preparatory to filing with the said Bureau his certificate of private woodland registration covering his original certificate of title (P-11779)-1818 located at barrio Basal, Maria Aurora, Quezon."cralaw virtua1aw library

The aforesaid motions notwithstanding, the preliminary inquiry proceeded. The complainant testified that she knew of the motion to withdraw the case; that she had no personal knowledge that Judge Oblena went to her logging area to frighten her laborers but that she was merely informed by them; that she filed the administrative complaint out of anger against the respondent judge for his failure to stop the preparation of a document turning over the logging operation from her to Elizabeth Trinidad; that although Judge Oblena was granted Certificate of Private Woodland Registration PWR 2602 over his titled land, he had not actually taken any logs therefrom; and that because he had been given a license she had erroneously assumed that he was engaged in the logging business.

In the course of the inquiry, the respondent manifested that he had indeed obtained a certificate of private woodland registration permit from the Bureau of Forestry but had not taken any logs from his property and that if he was going to, he would first seek the advice of or authority from the District Judge.

The only issue posed is whether the respondent municipal judge may be subject to sanctions for having secured a private woodland registration certificate without prior permission from the District Judge.

The respondent has incurred no administrative liability. Firstly, the Revised Administrative Code, in its section 1829, requires a private owner of land containing timber to register his title to the same with the Director of Forestry.

"Sec. 1829. — Registration of title to private forest land. — Every private owner of land containing timber, firewood and other minor forest products shall register his title to the same with the Director of Forestry. A list of such owners, with a statement of the boundaries of their property, shall be furnished by said Director to the Collector of Internal Revenue, and the same shall be supplemented from time to time as occasion may require.

"Upon application of the Director of Forestry the fiscal of the province in which any such land lies shall render assistance in the examination of the title thereof with a view to its registration in the Bureau of Forestry."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under this provision of law the judicial office held by the respondent has no bearing on his ownership of forest land the registration of which he is duty bound to accomplish; this being so, his compliance with the provision by registering his title as a "private owner of land containing timber . . ." needed no prior permission from the District Judge. And, secondly, the respondent has not transgressed Canons 24 and 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which provide as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"24. BUSINESS PROMOTIONS AND SOLICITATIONS FOR CHARITY. — He should avoid giving ground for any reasonable suspicion that he is utilizing the power or prestige of his office to persuade or coerce others to patronize or contribute, either to the success of private business ventures, or to charitable enterprises. He should, therefore, not enter into such private business, or pursue such a course of conduct, as would justify such suspicion, nor use the power of his office or the influence of his name to promote the business interests of others; he should not solicit for charities, nor should he enter into any business relation which, in the normal course of events reasonably to be expected, might bring his personal interest in conflict with the impartial performance of his official duties."cralaw virtua1aw library

"25. PERSONAL INVESTMENT AND RELATIONS. — A judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterprises which are apt to be involved in litigation in his court; and after his accession to the bench, he should not retain such investments previously made, longer than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them without serious loss. It is desirable that he should, so far as reasonably possible, refrain from all relations which would normally tend to arouse the suspicion that such relations warp or bias his judgment, or prevent his impartial attitude of mind in the administration of his judicial duties."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is no evidence that the respondent had made a personal investment or engaged in the logging business, which "involves the idea of a continuance or repetition of like acts:" 5 on the contrary, the complainant admitted that the respondent had not actually taken any logs from his woodland.

ACCORDINGLY, the complaints in Administrative Matters Nos. 32 MJ and 33 MJ against the respondent judge are hereby dismissed.

Makasiar, Esquerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. The respondent Judge Oblena testified that the complainant Cresencio Espiritu had a pending case in his court for illegal possession of firearms, and the last time he appeared was in May, 1972 to ask for postponement of the hearing of his case.

2. Go v. Candoy, Adm. Case 736, Oct. 23, 1967, 21 SCRA 439.

3. Zubiri v. Jumapao, Adm. Case 830, Jan. 28, 1971, 37 SCRA 53; Manlugon v. Villabroza, Adm. Case 199 MJ, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 462.

4. On October 23, 1972 the complainant Ulsa filed an amended complaint charging the respondent judge with engaging in business without prior permission from the proper Department Head. On October 30, the counsel for complainant moved to change the original designation of the charge from "abuse of authority" to "acts which would render the respondent unfit for office."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. Words & Phrases, Vol. 14A, p. 275, Perm. ed., citing Farrior v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 7 So. 200, 88 Ala. 275.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30736 July 11, 1975 - LIRAG TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT ON APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21814 July 15, 1975 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. MELECIO ABANZADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28017 July 15, 1975 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL. v. WILLIAM PFLEIDER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30543 July 15, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO CAWILI

  • G.R. No. L-30727 July 15, 1975 - CITY OF OZAMIZ v. SERAPIO S. LUMAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34897 July 15, 1975 - RAUL ARELLANO v. CFI OF SORSOGON, BRANCH I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37312 July 15, 1975 - MARCOS B. COMILANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37662 July 15, 1975 - RCPI v. PHIL. COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FEDERATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39721 July 15, 1975 - BRAULIO BERNABE v. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-39324 July 16, 1975 - CATALINO MAGDANGAL, ET AL. v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-15 July 17, 1975 - ALFONSO GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. EULALIO JUANSON

  • A.M. No. P-55 July 17, 1975 - ESPERANZA SARMIENTO v. FLORENCIO M. DAGDAG

  • G.R. No. L-37645 July 17, 1975 - JESUS L. SANTOS v. MARIANO CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-38137 July 17, 1975 - JOSE M. CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65120 July 18, 1975 - IN RE: PEDRO A. AMPARO

  • A.M. No. 32-MJ July 18, 1975 - LEON FRANADA, ET AL. v. VICENTE M. ERICTA, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-107 July 18, 1975 - ANTONIO PALAFOX, JR. v. CHARITO AKUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22375 July 18, 1975 - CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. PLASTIC ERA CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24754 July 18, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. P. J. KIENER COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29678 July 18, 1975 - JOSEFINA LODOVICA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39381 July 18, 1975 - FELISA LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 72-MJ July 22, 1975 - IGMEDIO T. LI v. JOSE H. MIJARES

  • A.M. No. P-105 July 22, 1975 - AUREA G. PEÑALOSA v. LIGAYA P SALAYON

  • A.M. No. P-167 July 22, 1975 - ALFREDO T. MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO C. ECLAVEA

  • A.M. No. P-202 July 22, 1975 - RENE P. RAMOS v. MOISES R. RADA

  • A.M. No. T-344 July 22, 1975 - IN RE: PEDRO P. TONGSON

  • G.R. No. L-25012 July 22, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26544 July 22, 1975 - NONATO BARROSO v. CASTRENSE C. VELOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28853 July 22, 1975 - BICOL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. G. S. CUYUGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28905 July 22, 1975 - TIU PO v. LILY LIM TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28967 July 22, 1975 - AMELIA G. TIBLE v. JOSE C. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. L-30477 July 22, 1975 - CRESCENTE VICTORINO v. FELIX ELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30915 July 22, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31150 July 22, 1915

    KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37635 July 22, 1975 - CRESENCIO MARTINEZ v. LEOPODO B. GIRONELLA

  • G.R. No. L-38196 July 22, 1975 - FEDERICO PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39677 July 22, 1975 - INTER-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39990 July 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL LICERA

  • A.M. No. P-1 July 25, 1975 - CIRILO TINAHA v. BENJAMIN MARAVILLA

  • A.M. No. 301-MJ July 25, 1975 - PABLO FETALINO v. CESAR L. MACALISANG

  • A.M. No. 306-MJ July 25, 1975 - MONICA SARMIENTO v. RAYMUNDO R. CRUZ

  • A.C. No. 532-MJ July 25, 1975 - PAULA S. QUIZON, ET. AL. v. JOSE G. BALTAZAR, JR.

  • A.C. No. 610-MJ July 25, 1975 - GEORGE P. SUAN v. DELSANTO RESUELLO

  • A.C. No. 936 July 25, 1975 - FERMINA LEGASPI DAROY, ET AL. v. RAMON CHAVES LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. L-19462 July 25, 1975 - ANTONIO V. ZARAGOZA v. ENRIQUE A. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22781 July 25, 1975 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24917 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO VERZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25434 July 25, 1975 - ARSENIO N. ROLDAN, JR. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26872 July 25, 1975 - VILLONCO REALTY COMPANY v. BORMAHECO, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27408 July 25, 1975 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28271 July 25, 1975 - SMITH, BELL & CO. (PHIL.), INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-28399 July 25, 1975 - COMPANIA MARITIMA, ET AL. v. UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30343 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO MENGOTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31460 July 25, 1975 - GENEROSO VILLANUEVA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LETICIA B. LOCSIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32052 July 25, 1975 - PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33502 July 25, 1975 - FEDERICO CABREJAS, ET AL. v. LUIS P. DONGALLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34952 July 25, 1975 - RAMON D. BAGATSING, ET AL. v. A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38135 July 25, 1975 - HILARIO C. ANTONIO v. ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38624 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40511 July 25, 1975 - MARA, INC. v. JUSTINIANO C. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40879 July 25, 1975 - IN RE: MAXIMO PAMPLONA v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF CALAMBA

  • G.R. No. L-22006 July 28, 1975 - BASILIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21231 July 30, 1975 - CONCORDIA LALUAN, ET AL. v. APOLINARIO MALPAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975 - VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. PASTOR D. AGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33713 July 30, 1975 - EUSEBIO B. GARCIA v. ERNESTO S. MATA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-143 July 31, 1975 - IN RE: APOLINAR O. FLORES

  • A.M. No. 392 July 31, 1975 - LUISA DE NACIONAL v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • A.C. No. 775 July 31, 1975 - BENJAMIN BAYOT v. JESUS R. BLANCA

  • A.M. No. 866-CJ July 31, 1975 - MIGUEL AGlLADA v. ALOYSIUS C. ALDAY

  • A.M. No. 899-MJ July 31, 1975 - MELQUIADES UDANI, JR. v. ALFONSO T. PAGHARION

  • A.C. No. 1236 July 31, 1975 - BERNARDA ARGANA v. VIRGILIO ANZ. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-22493 July 31, 1975 - ISLAND SALES, INC. v. UNITED PIONEERS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-23035 July 31, 1975 - PHILIPPINE NUT INDUSTRY, INC. v. STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26363 July 31, 1975 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26478-79 July 31, 1975 - HEIRS OF ANSELMA TUGADI, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27088 July 31, 1975 - HEIRS OF BATIOG LACAMEN v. HEIRS OF LARUAN

  • G.R. No. L-30822 July 31, 1975 - EDUARDO CLAPAROLS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31685 July 31, 1975 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. IMELDA R. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-35377-78 July 31, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO PILOTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36424 July 31, 1975 - INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. LORENZO RELOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38224 July 31, 1975 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38388 July 31, 1975 - GABRIEL LOQUIAS v. CESARIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38577 July 31, 1975 - C.K. SAN v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40403 July 31, 1975 - RUPERTA CONSTANTINO v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40796 July 31, 1975 - REPUBLIC BANK v. MAURICIA T. EBRADA