ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 2125 April 3, 1995 : ENRIQUE M. REYES vs. LEOPOLDO T. MAGLAYA

  • G.R. No. 108017 April 3, 1995 : MARIA BENITA A. DULAY vs. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102969 April 4, 1995 : GENERAL TEXTILE, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109910 April 5, 1995 : REMEDIOS G. SALVADOR, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114250 April 5, 1995 : DOMINICO C. CONGSON vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115644 April 5, 1995 : GOLDEN FLAME SAWMILL vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-7-360-0 April 6, 1995 : IN RE: INDORSEMENT OF FERNANDO DE LEON

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-2-037 SC April 6, 1995 : IN RE EMIL "Emiliano" P. JURADO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-942 April 6, 1995 : JOVITA R. CASAL vs. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80914 April 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. AMABLE FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108747 April 6, 1995 : PABLO C. FRANCISCO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114222 April 6, 1995 : FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ET AL. vs. JESUS B. GARCIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115504 April 6, 1995 : ANTONIO R. DANAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116801 April 6, 1995 : GLORIA G. LASTIMOSA vs. CONRADO VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1018 April 18, 1995 : ROGELIO L. SULE vs. JONATHAN S. BITENG

  • G.R. No. 104133 April 18, 1995 : SPS. EMILIO AND MILAGROS ABINUJAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112889 April 18, 1995 : BIENVENIDO O. MARQUEZ, JR. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1305 April 21, 1995 : DAN ALCANTARA vs. CAMILO E. TAMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69203 April 21, 1995 : ENRICO MANUEL vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80611 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GIL PARICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95711 April 21, 1995 : CITY FAIR CORPORATION vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102981-82 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. TEODORO ESMALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105998 April 21, 1995 : F.R.F. ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108997 April 21, 1995 : LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111944-47 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. EDUARDO G. MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 112087 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEXANDER B. SOAN

  • G.R. Nos. 112178-79 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. AIDA HONRADA

  • G.R. No. 112518 April 21, 1995 : CARLOS CABALLERO vs. ANTONIO P. SOLANO

  • G.R. No. 114714 April 21, 1995 : MARITIME MANNING AGENCIES, INC.ET AL. vs. POEA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116637 April 21, 1995 : COCA-COLA SALESFORCE UNION, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-962 April 24, 1995 : FERNANDO MARCELINO vs. MARIANO M. SINGSON, JR.

  • G.R. No. 118861 April 27, 1995 : EMMANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS vs. ROSITA C. CUMBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116246 April 27, 1995 : BENJAMIN R. ERNI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2125 April 3, 1995 : ENRIQUE M. REYES vs. LEOPOLDO T. MAGLAYA

  • G.R. No. 108017 April 3, 1995 : MARIA BENITA A. DULAY vs. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102969 April 4, 1995 : GENERAL TEXTILE, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109910 April 5, 1995 : REMEDIOS G. SALVADOR, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114250 April 5, 1995 : DOMINICO C. CONGSON vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115644 April 5, 1995 : GOLDEN FLAME SAWMILL vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-7-360-0 April 6, 1995 : IN RE: INDORSEMENT OF FERNANDO DE LEON

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-2-037 SC April 6, 1995 : IN RE EMIL "Emiliano" P. JURADO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-942 April 6, 1995 : JOVITA R. CASAL vs. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80914 April 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. AMABLE FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108747 April 6, 1995 : PABLO C. FRANCISCO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114222 April 6, 1995 : FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ET AL. vs. JESUS B. GARCIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115504 April 6, 1995 : ANTONIO R. DANAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116801 April 6, 1995 : GLORIA G. LASTIMOSA vs. CONRADO VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-914 April 10, 1995 : DOLORES ALFORTE vs. RUTH C. SANTOS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1018 April 18, 1995 : ROGELIO L. SULE vs. JONATHAN S. BITENG

  • G.R. No. 104133 April 18, 1995 : SPS. EMILIO AND MILAGROS ABINUJAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112889 April 18, 1995 : BIENVENIDO O. MARQUEZ, JR. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1305 April 21, 1995 : DAN ALCANTARA vs. CAMILO E. TAMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69203 April 21, 1995 : ENRICO MANUEL vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80611 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GIL PARICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95711 April 21, 1995 : CITY FAIR CORPORATION vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102981-82 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. TEODORO ESMALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105998 April 21, 1995 : F.R.F. ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108997 April 21, 1995 : LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111944-47 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. EDUARDO G. MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 112087 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEXANDER B. SOAN

  • G.R. Nos. 112178-79 April 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. AIDA HONRADA

  • G.R. No. 112518 April 21, 1995 : CARLOS CABALLERO vs. ANTONIO P. SOLANO

  • G.R. No. 114714 April 21, 1995 : MARITIME MANNING AGENCIES, INC.ET AL. vs. POEA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116637 April 21, 1995 : COCA-COLA SALESFORCE UNION, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-962 April 24, 1995 : FERNANDO MARCELINO vs. MARIANO M. SINGSON, JR.

  • G.R. No. 118861 April 27, 1995 : EMMANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS vs. ROSITA C. CUMBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116246 April 27, 1995 : BENJAMIN R. ERNI vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2125 April 3, 1995 - ENRIQUE M. REYES v. LEOPOLDO T. MAGLAYA

  • G.R. No. 108017 April 3, 1995 - MARIA BENITA A. DULAY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102969 April 4, 1995 - GENERAL TEXTILE, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109910 April 5, 1995 - REMEDIOS G. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114250 April 5, 1995 - DOMINICO C. CONGSON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115644 April 5, 1995 - GOLDEN FLAME SAWMILL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-7-360-0 April 6, 1995 - IN RE: INDORSEMENT OF FERNANDO DE LEON

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-2-037 SC April 6, 1995 - IN RE EMIL (Emiliano) P. JURADO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-942 April 6, 1995 - JOVITA R. CASAL v. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80914 April 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMABLE FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108747 April 6, 1995 - PABLO C. FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109713 April 6, 1995 - JOSE M. MERCADO v. BOARD OF ELECTION SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114222 April 6, 1995 - FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ET AL. v. JESUS B. GARCIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115504 April 6, 1995 - ANTONIO R. DANAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116801 April 6, 1995 - GLORIA G. LASTIMOSA v. CONRADO VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-914 April 10, 1995 - DOLORES ALFORTE v. RUTH C. SANTOS

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1160 April 10, 1995 - ALEXANDER VITO v. TEOFILO BUSLON, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1018 April 18, 1995 - ROGELIO L. SULE v. JONATHAN S. BITENG

  • G.R. No. 104133 April 18, 1995 - SPS. EMILIO AND MILAGROS ABINUJAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112889 April 18, 1995 - BIENVENIDO O. MARQUEZ, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1305 April 21, 1995 - DAN ALCANTARA v. CAMILO E. TAMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69203 April 21, 1995 - ENRICO MANUEL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80611 April 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL PARICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95711 April 21, 1995 - CITY FAIR CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102981-82 April 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO ESMALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105998 April 21, 1995 - F.R.F. ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108997 April 21, 1995 - LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111944-47 April 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO G. MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 112087 April 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER B. SOAN

  • G.R. Nos. 112178-79 April 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AIDA HONRADA

  • G.R. No. 112518 April 21, 1995 - CARLOS CABALLERO v. ANTONIO P. SOLANO

  • G.R. No. 114714 April 21, 1995 - MARITIME MANNING AGENCIES, INC.ET AL. v. POEA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116637 April 21, 1995 - COCA-COLA SALESFORCE UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-962 April 24, 1995 - FERNANDO MARCELINO v. MARIANO M. SINGSON, JR.

  • G.R. No. 118861 April 27, 1995 - EMMANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS v. ROSITA C. CUMBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116246 April 27, 1995 - BENJAMIN R. ERNI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-914   April 10, 1995 : DOLORES ALFORTE vs. RUTH C. SANTOS

     

    FIRST DIVISION

    [Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-914. April 10, 1995.]


    DR. DOLORES ALFORTE, Complainant, v. JUDGE RUTH C. SANTOS, Respondent.


    D E C I S I O N


    QUIASON, J.:


    This is an administrative complaint filed by Alexander Vito against Judge Teofilo Buslon, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cebu City for ignorance of the law, breach or violation of ethics, and unjustly rendering interlocutory orders.

    Complainant was the defendant in Civil Case No. CEB-10222, entitled "Mibelen Singson-Vito, et al. v. Alexander Vito" before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Cebu City for support. Respondent became the acting presiding judge of said court upon the retirement of the then presiding judge, Judge Ramon Am. Torres, in 1992. When respondent took over said court, Civil Case No. CEB-10222 was pending decision with an unresolved motion for reconsideration of the Order dated October 30, 1992. The said order denied the motion to suspend the giving of support pendente lite and the motion to quash the writ of execution of complainant.

    On the charge of ignorance of the law, complainant alleged that on June 7, 1993, respondent rendered a decision without resolving the motion for reconsideration of the Order dated October 30, 1992.

    The dispositive part of the Decision states:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered this Court renders judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering defendant:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    1. To give support of P10,000.00 per month payable within the first five days of every month to the plaintiff starting from May 1991 deducting therefrom the amount of support pendente lite;

    2. To reimburse attorney's fees and litigation expenses in the amount of P10,000.00; and

    3. To pay the cost of the suit" (Rollo, p. 2).cralaw

    A timely appeal was made from said decision.

    Plaintiffs filed a motion for execution pending appeal dated July 6, 1993, which was granted by respondent on July 15, 1993.

    On July 23, 1993, complainant filed a motion to quash the Order dated July 15, 1993 on the following grounds: 1) that it was issued beyond the jurisdiction of the court for an appeal had already been perfected; and 2) that no notice was sent to him in violation of Section 2, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. However, the motion to quash was mooted when plaintiffs withdrew their motion for execution pending appeal because they could not afford to pay the premiums for the supersedeas bond.

    On August 4, 1993, one month after the perfection of the appeal, the plaintiffs filed a motion to cite complainant for contempt. The motion alleged that on October 28, 1991, the trial court issued an order granting the application of the plaintiffs for support pendente lite and that inspite of the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce said order the complainant refused to give the support (Rollo, pp. 15-16).

    On August 13, 1993, complainant opposed plaintiffs' motion to cite him for contempt on the grounds that said motion was not verified in violation of Section 6, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court and that the trial court had lost its jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of an appeal.

    Complainant claimed that respondent, without any hearing, issued an order on August 24, 1993 finding him guilty of contempt of court and ordered his arrest without bail.

    Respondent, in his Comment, contended that the Regional Trial Court had not been deprived of jurisdiction despite the perfection of an appeal because the case was one for support, which is a continuing obligation.

    We ruled in Vasco v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 762 (1978), that the trial court loses its jurisdiction over cases for support after the perfection of the appeal "except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties. . . ." Respondent's view, that the court never lost jurisdiction over the support case, is correct only with regard to the amount of the maintenance allowance which is essentially provisional (Canonizado v. Benitez, 125 SCRA 610 [1984]).cralaw

    Although a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for an error of judgment, that does not necessarily mean that he should be negligent in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives (Revita v. Rimando, 98 SCRA 619 [1980]). We find respondent negligent in this regard. nadchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    On the charge of rendering unjust interlocutory orders, complainant alleged that on August 30, 1993 respondent issued a hold order dated August 30, 1993 on the basis of a non-existing motion and a void order for contempt of court. He claimed that the basis of the August 30, 1993 Order was a motion for hold order dated August 31, 1993 filed by the plaintiffs on the same day at 3:20 P.M. Moreover, he alleged: (1) that the antedating of the motion to August 30, 1993 was merely to cover-up respondent's lack of jurisdiction after September 3, 1993 as presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6; and (2) that respondent erred when he issued the Order dated August 30, 1993 without complainant's knowledge as the latter was served with the motion only on September 3, 1993. He claimed that he was deprived of his day in court as respondent immediately ruled on the, motion before the notice was received by him.

    Respondent, on the other hand, averred that the discrepancy on the date was due to a typographical error inadvertently committed by the stenographer who typed the said order. He reasoned out that the typing of the date as August 30, 1993 and not August 31, 1993 was an error committed in good faith.

    We find satisfactory the explanation given by Court Stenographer Esperanza A. Bascar in her affidavit dated November 18, 1993 that she was the one who made the mistake in typing the date.

    With regard to the issuance of the hold order even before complainant had received his copy of the motion filed by the plaintiffs in the said case, respondent attached a copy of the Order dated December 9, 1993 of Judge De la Victoria who assumed office over the said branch (Annex "P"; Rollo pp. 40-43). In the said Order, Judge De la Victoria ruled that the motion for the issuance of the hold order departure could be done ex-parte as it is of an urgent nature; hence, the issuance of the motion directed to the proper government agencies against the movant did not require any notice at all.

    A motion for the issuance of a hold order, like any other motion, cannot be granted without giving the affected party an opportunity to oppose it. Section 24, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court is explicit when it states that "notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned, at least three days before hearing thereof. . . ." There is no showing of the urgency that may justify the court's acting ex-parte on the motion for issuance of the hold-order. nadchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Furthermore, complainant alleged that during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration of the hold order, respondent wrote a letter to Judge De la Victoria, the presiding judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, which caused the denial of the motion. Respondent denied that he wrote an "influencing letter" to Judge De la Victoria. He claimed that he merely explained to the said judge that the dating of the questioned order as August 30, 1993 was due to clerical error (Annex "O"; Rollo, p. 40). We find adequate and satisfactory respondent's explanation.

    On the charge of breach of judicial ethics, complainant alleged that after the issuance of the Order dated August 31, 1993, respondent acted as a sponsor at the wedding of one of the plaintiffs' daughter in the Civil Case No. CEB 10222.

    Respondent, for his part, alleged that he stood as one of the sponsors in the said wedding after he had assumed office as acting presiding judge of another branch of the court (Branch 23). He claimed that he had accepted the invitation to act as one of the sponsors because he valued the chance to meet the Vice-Mayor of Cebu City, whose father was his professor in college.

    Respondent's act of standing as a sponsor violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rule 2.01 which states that "a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary" (Alfonso v. Juanson, 228 SCRA 239 [1993]). Furthermore, it has been said that a magistrate of the law must conduct himself in a manner that his acts, whether in the office or in public, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the people that look up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice (Dia-Anonuevo v. Bercacio, 68 SCRA 81 [1975]). nadchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    WHEREFORE, respondent is FINED the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00). He is WARNED that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future will merit a more severe penalty.

    SO ORDERED.

    Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

    Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-914   April 10, 1995 : DOLORES ALFORTE vs. RUTH C. SANTOS


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED