March 1981 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > March 1981 Decisions >
A.M. No. 1946-CTJ March 30, 1981 - AMALIO RONDAEL v. LEONARDO E. LOZANO:
SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 1946-CTJ. March 30, 1981.]
AMALIO RONDAEL and AMALIA SALAÑO-RONDAEL, Complainants, v. CITY JUDGE LEONARDO E. LOZANO of Iloilo City, Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Complainants filed a verified complaint for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion against respondent City Judge Leonardo E. Lozano of Iloilo City who rendered a decision in an ejectment case which he tried ex-parte in view of defendants’ and their counsel’s failure to appear at the scheduled hearings despite due notice and ordered them to vacate the premises and to pay the accrued back rentals to the plaintiffs. Complainants alleged that respondent is the "compadre" of the plaintiffs and that their ejectment was a violation of Presidential Decree No. 20. The record shows however, that they did not invoke that defense at the trial, nor did they present any evidence. They did not seasonably file any motion for reconsideration, neither did they interpose an appeal, nor point out the errors committed by respondent Judge. Instead complainants allowed the judgment to become final.
The Supreme Court held that there is no ground for taking disciplinary action against respondent judge who acted within his jurisdiction in rendering the judgment against the herein complainants who were duly heard and were not deprived of due process.
Administrative complaint dismissed for lack of merit.
The Supreme Court held that there is no ground for taking disciplinary action against respondent judge who acted within his jurisdiction in rendering the judgment against the herein complainants who were duly heard and were not deprived of due process.
Administrative complaint dismissed for lack of merit.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; COMPLAINT AGAINST CITY JUDGE; GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION; NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION CAN BE TAKEN AGAINST A JUDGE WHO ACTED WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION: CASE AT BAR. — There is no ground for taking disciplinary action against respondent judge who acted within his jurisdiction in rendering judgment against herein complainants who were duly heard and were not deprived of due process. Complainants did not present any evidence during the trial. They did not seasonably file any motion for reconsideration nor interpose an appeal and they did not point out the errors committed by respondent judge. The complainants allowed the judgment to become final.
R E S O L U T I O N
AQUINO, J.:
The spouses Pilar G. Hedriana and Jose Hedriana filed in the city court of Iloilo City a complaint for ejectment dated August 31, 1977 against the spouses Amalio Rondael and Amalia Salaño-Rondael on the ground of nonpayment of rentals from January, 1976.
The premises involved were a portion of a building used for residential purposes and leased on a month-to-month basis to the Rondael spouses since November, 1972 at a monthly rental of P200 (Civil Case No. 12028, pp. 5-7, Rollo).
The Rondael spouses in their answer alleged that they would pay the back rentals in October, 1977 when their palay would be harvested. They did not invoke Presidential Decree No. 20.
On October 17, 1977, they manifested that they deposited the sum of P3,200 as the net back rentals from January, 1976 to October, 1977 (P4,400 less P1,200 which the Hedriana spouses owed the Rondael spouses as expenses incurred for the release of the Hedrianas’ rifle from Camp Crame).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
On October 7, 1977, the Hedriana spouses filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Rondaels’ answer did not tender any triable issue. The Rondael spouses did not oppose that motion nor did their counsel appear in court on October 14, 1977 when it was set for hearing.
On October 19, 1977, the day of the trial, of which the counsel of the Rondael spouses was duly notified, they and their counsel did not appear.
Respondent city judge, in his decision of November 25, 1977, ordered the Rondael spouses to vacate the premises and to pay the net back rentals of P3,200 plus P500 as attorney’s fees (p. 18, Rollo). The city court ignored the deposit of P3,200 made by the Rondael spouses.
A copy of that decision was served upon the counsel of the Rondael spouses on December 9, 1977. It became final and executory after December 24, the last day of the 15-day reglementary period for appeal.
On December 22, 1977, the Hedriana spouses filed an ex-parte motion for execution of the judgment. The city court granted it in its order of January 17, 1978. On that same day, a writ of execution was issued.
On January 9, 1978, the Rondael spouses filed a motion for reconsideration. The city court denied it in its order of January 13, 1978.
Through another lawyer, the Rondael spouses filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition for prohibition dated June 2, 1978 against respondent judge, the sheriff and the Hedriana spouses to stop the enforcement of the writ of execution which was allegedly issued with grave abuse of discretion (Civil Case No. 12246). The petition was dismissed (p. 51, Rollo).
The Rondael spouses in a verified petition dated May 30, 1978 charged respondent city judge in this Court with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion. They prayed that he be investigated, suspended and "disbarred."
They later alleged in their reply that respondent judge is the "compadre" of the Hedriana spouses and that their ejectment from the leased premises was a violation of Presidential Decree No. 20 (pp. 50-52, Rollo).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
We find that there is no ground for taking disciplinary action against respondent judge. He acted within his jurisdiction in rendering the judgment against the herein complainants who were duly heard and were not deprived of due process. They did not present any evidence during the trial.
They did not seasonably file any motion for reconsideration nor interpose an appeal and they did not point out the errors committed by respondent judge. The complainants allowed the judgment to become final.
WHEREFORE, the complaint is dismissed for lack of merit. A copy of this resolution should be attached to the personal file of the Respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Fernandez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., is on leave.
The premises involved were a portion of a building used for residential purposes and leased on a month-to-month basis to the Rondael spouses since November, 1972 at a monthly rental of P200 (Civil Case No. 12028, pp. 5-7, Rollo).
The Rondael spouses in their answer alleged that they would pay the back rentals in October, 1977 when their palay would be harvested. They did not invoke Presidential Decree No. 20.
On October 17, 1977, they manifested that they deposited the sum of P3,200 as the net back rentals from January, 1976 to October, 1977 (P4,400 less P1,200 which the Hedriana spouses owed the Rondael spouses as expenses incurred for the release of the Hedrianas’ rifle from Camp Crame).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
On October 7, 1977, the Hedriana spouses filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Rondaels’ answer did not tender any triable issue. The Rondael spouses did not oppose that motion nor did their counsel appear in court on October 14, 1977 when it was set for hearing.
On October 19, 1977, the day of the trial, of which the counsel of the Rondael spouses was duly notified, they and their counsel did not appear.
Respondent city judge, in his decision of November 25, 1977, ordered the Rondael spouses to vacate the premises and to pay the net back rentals of P3,200 plus P500 as attorney’s fees (p. 18, Rollo). The city court ignored the deposit of P3,200 made by the Rondael spouses.
A copy of that decision was served upon the counsel of the Rondael spouses on December 9, 1977. It became final and executory after December 24, the last day of the 15-day reglementary period for appeal.
On December 22, 1977, the Hedriana spouses filed an ex-parte motion for execution of the judgment. The city court granted it in its order of January 17, 1978. On that same day, a writ of execution was issued.
On January 9, 1978, the Rondael spouses filed a motion for reconsideration. The city court denied it in its order of January 13, 1978.
Through another lawyer, the Rondael spouses filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition for prohibition dated June 2, 1978 against respondent judge, the sheriff and the Hedriana spouses to stop the enforcement of the writ of execution which was allegedly issued with grave abuse of discretion (Civil Case No. 12246). The petition was dismissed (p. 51, Rollo).
The Rondael spouses in a verified petition dated May 30, 1978 charged respondent city judge in this Court with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion. They prayed that he be investigated, suspended and "disbarred."
They later alleged in their reply that respondent judge is the "compadre" of the Hedriana spouses and that their ejectment from the leased premises was a violation of Presidential Decree No. 20 (pp. 50-52, Rollo).chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
We find that there is no ground for taking disciplinary action against respondent judge. He acted within his jurisdiction in rendering the judgment against the herein complainants who were duly heard and were not deprived of due process. They did not present any evidence during the trial.
They did not seasonably file any motion for reconsideration nor interpose an appeal and they did not point out the errors committed by respondent judge. The complainants allowed the judgment to become final.
WHEREFORE, the complaint is dismissed for lack of merit. A copy of this resolution should be attached to the personal file of the Respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Fernandez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., is on leave.
