Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1985 > June 1985 Decisions > A.M. No. R-54-RTJ June 19, 1985 - FRANCISCO FAGTANAC v. ODON YRAD, JR.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. R-54-RTJ. June 19, 1985.]

FRANCISCO FAGTANAC, Complainant, v. HON. JUDGE ODON YRAD, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Branch XV, Roxas City, Respondent.


R E S O L U T I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Judge Odon Yrad, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XV at Roxas City, is the respondent in this administrative case.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

In Civil Case No. V-4338 of the then Court of First Instance of Capiz, entitled Francisco Fagtanac v. Jesus Balolo, Et Al., Judge Oscar Leviste rendered a decision dated February 18, 1982, with the following dispositive portion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of the above evidence and of the failure to contradict the same, the defendants being in default, it appears that they are obligated as stated in the above complaint, and that this Court orders them to pay to the petitioner, Francisco Fagtanac in behalf and for the estate of the late Silvina Fagtanac Vda. de Bellosillo, the amounts of palay first class numbering as listed above, or to pay their equivalent in legal tender at P50.00 per cavan, with interest until paid, at the legal rate, from the date of the filing of the complaint, February 19, 1980, and for each defendant to pay moral damages to Francisco Fagtanac in the amount of P500.00, and since no actual receipt of payment was presented as to attorney’s fees, the amount prayed of P3,000.00 is reduced to P2,000.00."cralaw virtua1aw library

Judge Leviste in an order dated October 18, 1982, directed execution of the judgment.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

When the inferior courts were reorganized pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 in January, 1983, Civil Case No. V-4338 was re-assigned to respondent Judge Yrad who reiterated execution of the judgment in an order dated March 15, 1983. However, on June 14, 1983, he issued another order which reads in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"After taking into consideration the arguments of the motion and opposition, and taking into consideration the facts obtaining in the records of this case, this Court must take into consideration the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That this case is for collection of rentals filed by a supposed landowner against tillers of the soil and in accordance with Section 12 of Pres. Decree 946, this must be referred to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform;

2. That there is an allegation that defendants in this case are tenant-tillers cultivating rice and cornland which to the mind of this Court is within the coverage of operation land transfer. Had the Ministry of Agrarian Reform identified the tenant-tiller of the landholding as covered by operation land transfer and in accordance with Memorandum Circular No. 29, implementing Pres. Decree No. 27 and Pres. Decree 316, cases of this nature may be referred to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform at any stage of the proceedings even during the execution.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the records of this case are hereby ordered referred to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform for certification whether the landholding in question is under operation land transfer, whether defendants in this case are identified as tenant-tillers and whether the case is proper for trial or not.

"Pending the period of referral, the resolution of all incidents are hereby held in abeyance and in the meantime the records of this case are placed in archive without prejudice."cralaw virtua1aw library

Because of Judge Yrad’s order mentioned above, Francisco Fagtanac accused the former of violating Articles 206 and 207 of the Revised Penal Code; Fagtanac alleges that, "the said Interlocutory Order as issued is unjust and it was issued to unduly delay the administration of justice, by maliciously and unduly delaying the execution of a final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 4338 and the Order of Execution of the decision aforesaid."cralaw virtua1aw library

Judge Yrad was asked to comment and after his comment was received, the case was referred to Justice Fidel Purisima of the Intermediate Appellate Court for investigation, report and recommendation.

The report of Justice Purisima is now before Us.

Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code stipulates that: "Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension." And Article 207 of the same code states that: "The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice."cralaw virtua1aw library

According to Justice Purisima, "it cannot be said that respondent Judge knowingly or feloniously issued" the questioned order. And the investigator adds that, "So also, inexcusable negligence or ignorance cannot be imputed to the respondent Judge under the attendant circumstances." This takes care of Article 206.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

As to Article 207, the investigator says: "With the evidence at hand, the accusation for malicious delay in the administration of justice, within the purview of Article 207 of the Revised Penal Code, cannot also be sustained. The essence of such malefaction is malice. Mere delay sans malice does not bring a judge within the ambit of said penal provision."cralaw virtua1aw library

The exoneration of the respondent judge notwithstanding, the investigator makes the following observation and recommendation: "But even as respondent Judge should be absolved of the present charge, for want of enough substantiation, he has to be reminded of his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court and not to dispose a case in accordance with his personal views and inclination."cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondent judge justified the issuance of the questioned order thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned, before his assignment to his present position, was a CAR Judge, that is why he is aware of the effect of non-referral of cases filed by alleged landowners. The effect of the execution of the decision of which complainant seeks to be executed may oust the tillers of the soil and since there is no referral, the execution of the said decision is very doubtful.

"Referrals shall be made at any stage of the proceedings in accordance with Memorandum Circular No. 29, which states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘With respect to agrarian or civil cases submitted for decision or pending execution: — Before decision is rendered or before execution of decision where such decision or execution would result in the ejectment of the actual tiller of the tenant-farmer in order to determine whether the defendant has become a beneficiary or a recipient of a Land Transfer Certificate pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (Memo Circular No. 29 MAR Series of 1973).’

"The undersigned, in compliance with the above circular and without the intention of delaying the proceedings, as alleged by the complainant, ordered the referral of this case. It is the honest opinion of the undersigned that before the Court issues the order of execution, the Court must seek the aid of other agencies of the government."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are not disposed to accept the recommendation that the respondent judge should be admonished. True it is that in a number of cases this Court has held that after trial the court’s determination of the relationship between the contending parties is final and conclusive for while the referral to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform is mandatory before trial, after trial the court’s finding is definitive. Nonetheless it is manifest that the respondent acted in good faith; he did not intend to prejudice the landowner but acted cautiously to protect what he perceived to be the rights of the adversaries.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

WHEREFORE, the charges against the respondent are hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.

Aquino and Escolin, JJ., took no part.




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






June-1985 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-61231 June 18, 1985 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-65418 June 18, 1985 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-68374 June 18, 1985 - HORACIO LUNA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • A.M. No. R-54-RTJ June 19, 1985 - FRANCISCO FAGTANAC v. ODON YRAD, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-38012 June 19, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO BASELOY

  • G.R. No. L-45824 June 19, 1985 - VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-50248 June 19, 1985 - ARCADIO ESPIRITU v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-50992 June 19, 1985 - NATIVIDAD SAMPANG v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. Nos. L-51923-25 June 19, 1985 - ALICIA V. ALVIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-55102 June 19, 1985 - GORGONIO TEJERO v. EULALIO D. ROSETE

  • G.R. No. L-56451 June 19, 1985 - JUAN LAO v. MELECIO A. GENATO

  • G.R. No. L-60149 June 19, 1985 - MARINDUQUE MINING AND INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-62297 June 19, 1985 - CARMELO A. ARREZA v. GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

  • G.R. No. L-62387 June 19, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-67573 June 19, 1985 - TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES v. BLAS. F. OPLE

  • G.R. Nos. L-69810-14 June 19, 1985 - TEODULO RURA v. GERVACIO A. LOPENA

  • G.R. No. L-40422 June 24, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIRSO CANOY

  • G.R. No. L-45083 June 24, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL SUNGA

  • G.R. No. L-45715 June 24, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO PASCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-48360 June 24, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO BARACA

  • G.R. No. L-55417 June 24, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON M. PACABES

  • G.R. No. L-61165 June 24, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRED PELIAS JONES

  • G.R. No. L-65676 June 24, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFEMIO EGAS

  • G.R. Nos. L-66570-71 June 24, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLING TUSCANO

  • G.R. No. L-70230 June 24, 1985 - TEODORICO CASTILLO v. PROCORO J. DONATO

  • G.R. No. L-39181 June 27, 1985 - DELFIN JASMIN v. MIGUEL VALERA

  • G.R. No. L-43179 June 27, 1985 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-44051 June 27, 1985 - EUFRACIA VDA. DE CRISOLOGO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-44823 June 27, 1985 - VICENTE OUANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-45157 June 27, 1985 - MELY TANGONAN v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-48814 June 27, 1985 - REYNOLDS PHILIPPINE CORP. v. GENARO A. ESLAVA

  • G.R. No. L-53427 June 27, 1985 - CESAR ARICA v. MINISTER OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-56866 June 27, 1985 - EDEN TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-63737 June 27, 1985 - PEDRO BISNAR v. JOSE G. ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-69885 June 27, 1985 - FRANCISCO ESGUERRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-41615 June 29, 1985 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DEL DANAO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-43828 June 29, 1985 - BALTAZAR C. REYES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-44616 June 29, 1985 - MARIA U. ESPAÑOL v. BOARD, PHILIPPINE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

  • G.R. No. L-63658 June 29, 1985 - JAMES A. STRONG v. JOSE P. CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-66870-72 June 29, 1985 - AGAPITO MAGBANUA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT