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
 

   
June-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 125297 June 6, 2003 - ELVIRA YU OH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143675 June 9, 2003 - SPS. ROMEO and EMILY GUDA v. ALAN A. LEYNES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145338 June 9, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY P. LABIANO

  • A.C. No. 4738 June 10, 2003 - VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG v. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA

  • Bar Matter No. 1036 June 10, 2003 - DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE v. EDWIN L. RANA

  • A.M. No. 99-6-81-MTCC June 10, 2003 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTCC OF PALAYAN CITY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203 June 10, 2003 - NELIA A. ZIGA v. RAMON A. AREJOLA

  • A.M. No. P-96-1214 June 10, 2003 - BERNARDINO M. FABIAN, ET AL. v. LEILA (LAILA) M. GALO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1751 June 10, 2003 - ANDREA D. DOMINGO v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

  • G.R. No. 111159 June 10, 2003 - NORDIC ASIA LIMITED, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116463 June 10, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. thru the DPWH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119293 June 10, 2003 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123054 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO B. OBEDO

  • G.R. No. 125778 June 10, 2003 - INTER-ASIA INVESTMENTS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125838 June 10, 2003 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126281 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO A. CARATAO

  • G.R. No. 131842 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO JACKSON

  • G.R. No. 139561 June 10, 2003 - SPS. FEDERICO & SARAH ATUEL, ET AL. v. SPS. BERNABE & CONCHITA VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 141115 June 10, 2003 - POSADAS-MOYA and ASSOC. CONST. CO. v. GREENFIELD DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142467 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO DE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143076 June 10, 2003 - PHILIPPINE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. SECRETARY, DILG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143125 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL .vs. DIOSDADO R. CORIAL

  • G.R. No. 144157 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOWELL SALUDES

  • G.R. Nos. 144523-26 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO QUIJANO SR.

  • G.R. Nos. 145452-53 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY CARITATIVO

  • G.R. Nos. 146749 & 147938 June 10, 2003 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 149154 June 10, 2003 - RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 150611 June 10, 2003 - JACINTO SAGUID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153660 June 10, 2003 - PRUDENCIO BANTOLINO, ET AL. v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1724 June 12, 2003 - RODOLFO O. MACACHOR v. ROLINDO D. BELDIA JR.

  • G.R. No. 138541 June 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LARRY COLONIA

  • G.R. No. 148327 June 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO P. DESALISA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1679 June 16, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. BEL EDUARDO F. NITAFAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. SCC-03-08 June 16, 2003 - ERMELYN A. LIMBONA v. CASAN ALI LIMBONA

  • G.R. No. 95901 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO B. SIBONGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138692 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR AREO

  • G.R. Nos. 141280-81 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY L. SODSOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144589 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO PACUANCUAN

  • G.R. No. 149683 June 16, 2003 - ILOILO TRADERS FINANCE INC. v. HEIRS OF OSCAR SORIANO JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149750 June 16, 2003 - AURORA ALCANTARA-DAUS v. SPS. HERMOSO & SOCORRO DE LEON

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1106 June 17, 2003 - CELESTINA B. CORPUZ v. ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1710 June 17, 2003 - EVANGELINA C. SAMSON v. JULES A. MEDIA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1784 June 17, 2003 - MANUEL M. ROSALES v. ROMULO S.G. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123146 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALONA BULI-E, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128225 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE A. NARRA

  • G.R. No. 137042 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE MUSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144225 June 17, 2003 - SPS. GODOFREDO and CARMEN ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO and ADELIA BORRAS

  • G.R. No. 145993 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO I. MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 148668 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TONY L. PEDRONAN

  • G.R. No. 151440 June 17, 2003 - HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO SANTIAGO v. HEIRS OF MARIANO E. SANTIAGO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1493 June 18, 2003 - RENE BOY GOMEZ v. MANUEL D. PATALINGHUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123161 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO SOLAMILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125305 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. Nos. 127756-58 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. MEDINA SR.

  • G.R. Nos. 131926 & 138991 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134981 June 18, 2003 - FREDELITO P. VITTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135857 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO ARCA

  • G.R. Nos. 140439-40 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX HERMOSA

  • G.R. No. 144975 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR SAPIGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149147 June 18, 2003 - FELIX BAROT v. COMELEC CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF TANJAY CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150327 June 18, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARILYN A. PERALTA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 01-6-314-RTC June 19, 2003 - RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA, RTC-BR. 59, SAN CARLOS CITY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-92-710 June 19, 2003 - PEDRITA M. HARAYO v. JUDGE MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • G.R. No. 154411 June 19, 2003 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1701 June 20, 2003 - BALTAZAR LL. FIRMALO v. MELINDA C. QUIERREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1594 June 20, 2003 - PASTOR SALUD v. FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

  • G.R. No. 122766 June 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ESPONILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127275 June 20, 2003 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130759 June 20, 2003 - ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CONCEPTS TRADING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 139332 June 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NOLI A. NOVIO

  • G.R. No. 140698 June 20, 2003 - ROGELIO ENGADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142503 June 20, 2003 - ROMUALDO C. PEREZ v. APOLONIO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 142820 June 20, 2003 - WOLFGANG O. ROEHR v. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143604 June 20, 2003 - PRISCO LANZADERAS, ET AL. v. AMETHYST SECURITY AND GENERAL SERVICES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146595 June 20, 2003 - CARLO A. TAN v. KAAKBAY FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152436 June 20, 2003 - NPC v. SPS. IGMEDIO CHIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152766 June 20, 2003 - LILIA SANCHEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140872 June 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO T. INGGO

  • G.R. Nos. 142683-84 June 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO JOROLAN

  • G.R. Nos. 143760-63 June 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. MANLUCTAO

  • G.R. No. 144018 June 23, 2003 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. v. TOMAS TOH, SR., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3849 June 25, 2003 - FELICIDAD VDA. DE BERNARDO v. JOSE R. RESTAURO

  • G.R. Nos. 105416-17, 111863 & 143715 June 25, 2003 - PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122109 June 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TORIO

  • G.R. No. 123896 June 25, 2003 - ROSALINDA SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126113 June 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO B. GUIHAMA

  • G.R. No. 135323 June 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDELMA LAGATA

  • G.R. No. 136773 June 25, 2003 - MILAGROS MANONGSONG v. FELOMENA JUMAQUIO ESTIMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146018 June 25, 2003 - EDGAR COKALIONG SHIPPING LINES v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147613 June 25, 2003 - ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1472 June 26, 2003 - ADRIANO V. ALBIOR v. DONATO A. AUGUIS

  • A.M. No. P-02-1544 June 26, 2003 - ERNESTO LUMANTA v. WILFREDO M. TUPAS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1670 June 26, 2003 - SPS. CAROLINA AND VILLAMOR GRAGERA v. PABLO B. FRANCISCO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1736 June 26, 2003 - SPS. ARTURO and JOSEFINA DE GUZMAN v. FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 June 26, 2003 - GREGORIO LIMPOT LUMAPAS v. CAMILO E. TAMIN

  • G.R. No. 137296 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO Q. VICENTE

  • G.R. No. 140967 June 26, 2003 - EMERITA ACOSTA v. EMILIO ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 141863 June 26, 2003 - BASILIO RIVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144090 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL S. MAGUING

  • G.R. No. 145305 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REDANTE C. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 145731 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO GERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148730 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE D. DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154705 June 26, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, ET AL. v. JAMES VINZON

  • G.R. No. 121828 June 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE GAYOT PILOLA

  • G.R. Nos. 124830-31 June 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO P. EVINA

  • G.R. No. 138993 June 27, 2003 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 139217–24 June 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON ESPERANZA

  • G.R. No. 143643 June 27, 2003 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. JOSE & MA. CLARA CAMPOS

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519   June 26, 2003 - GREGORIO LIMPOT LUMAPAS v. CAMILO E. TAMIN

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519. June 26, 2003.]

    (Formerly OCA IPI No. 97-438-RTJ)

    GREGORIO LIMPOT LUMAPAS, Complainant, v. JUDGE CAMILO E. TAMIN, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 23, 9th Judicial Region, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    Because of the obstinate refusal of respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, to issue a writ of execution of the final and executory judgment in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820, complainant Gregorio Limpot Lumapas charged respondent of grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. 1 Complainant also averred that the respondent’s action is in defiance of this Court’s Resolution in A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519, dated June 27, 2000 2 where this Court ordered the respondent to pay a fine for failing to fulfill the ministerial duty of issuing a writ of execution in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820 and to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the Court of Appeals ordering him to issue a writ of execution. The dispositive portion of our Resolution in Lumapas v. Tamin reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, for refusing to fulfill a ministerial duty and to obey an order issued by a superior court, respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin, presiding judge of Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, is ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00. He is further warned that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with even more severely.

    SO ORDERED. 3

    Complainant averred that following this Court’s denial on September 13, 2000 4 of the respondent’s motion for reconsideration, 5 he filed with the trial court on September 19, 2000 another motion for execution 6 of the decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820. As previously mentioned, the respondent denied the motion by Order 7 dated September 22, 2000.

    In his Comment, 8 the respondent challenged this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the instant Complaint. According to him, what is essentially involved is a question of law because it calls for an interpretation of the complainant’s right. The administrative complaint being an original action, to entertain it is against the settled rule that a judicial matter involving a question of law cannot be raised to the Supreme Court through an original action but only through either appeal or certiorari pursuant to Section 5(2)(e) 9 of Article VIII of the Constitution. He contended that a division of the Supreme Court has no constitutional jurisdiction to impose disciplinary sanction upon judges of lower courts. 10

    Also, respondent judge claimed that the Court of Appeals awarded to the complainant only a conditional right of possession to the land in question, conditioned upon the validity of his title to be determined in an appropriate proceeding. Since the complainant had yet to institute the proper proceedings in court to determine the validity of his title to the land in question, the issuance of a writ of execution was premature. According to the respondent, the situation poses a dilemma for him. On one hand, if he issues the writ of possession before the complainant has complied with the suspensive condition imposed in the Court of Appeals decision, he would be liable for illegally issuing the writ of possession. On the other hand, if he does not issue the writ of possession, the Office of the Court Administrator would prosecute the instant administrative case. 11

    Finally, the respondent asserted that the instant administrative case had placed him in double jeopardy. 12

    By Resolution 13 dated September 17, 2001, this Court resolved to treat this matter as a supplementary complaint and referred this matter to Court of Appeals Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (now a member of this Court) for investigation, report and recommendation.

    On January 9, 2002, the parties submitted the case for decision on the basis of the record and the verbal manifestation of the respondent that he is invoking the defense of double jeopardy. 14

    In her report, 15 Justice Carpio Morales found the respondent liable for grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. She recommended that respondent be suspended for six (6) months without pay. We are in agreement with her recommendation, except as to the penalty to be imposed.

    As hereafter discussed, the penalty appears less than commensurate to the administrative offenses found. At the outset, respondent’s insistence that the present administrative case may only be brought to this Court by appeal or certiorari deserves scant consideration. It must be rejected outright for being baseless.

    This administrative matter involves the exercise of the Court’s power to discipline judges. It is distinct from its power of appellate review under Section 5, paragraph, 2(e). An administrative case is not a continuation or an appeal from the main case, and it involves different issues although the two cases may have arisen from related facts. Administrative cases are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, i.e., to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies and instrumentalities.

    When this Court acts on complaints against judges or any personnel under its supervision, it acts as personnel administrator, imposing discipline and not as a court judging justiciable controversies. 16 In this case the issue is whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for his continued refusal to perform a ministerial duty and to obey the lawful order of a superior court, not whether the complainant is entitled to the land in question or to its possession — the issues in CV No. 31820. Hence, what is involved is not this Court’s power to review; revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari final judgments and orders of lower courts in cases involving only questions of law. The present administrative case does not call for the exercise of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

    Likewise unmeritorious is the respondent’s insistence that this Court’s previous Resolution in A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519, is not valid. He challenges this Court’s jurisdiction to impose disciplinary sanctions, through one of its Divisions. Such effrontery on the part of respondent only reveals ignorance of precedents with regard to administrative powers of this Tribunal.

    In People v. Hon. Gacott, Jr., 17 this Court made the following pronouncements:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . . [T]he very text of the present Section 11 18 of Article VIII clearly shows that there are actually two situations envisaged therein. The first clause which states that "the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts," is a declaration of the grant of that disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure in the exercise thereof by, the Court en banc. It was not therein intended that all administrative disciplinary cases should be heard and decided by the whole Court since it would result in an absurdity, as will hereafter be explained.

    The second clause, which refers to the second situation contemplated therein and is intentionally separated from the first by a comma, declares on the other hand that the Court en banc can "order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted therein." Evidently, in this instance, the administrative case must be deliberated upon and decided by the full Court itself.

    Pursuant to the first clause which confers administrative disciplinary power to the Court en banc, on February 9, 1993 a Court En Banc resolution was adopted, entitled "Bar Matter No. 209. — In the Matter of the Amendment and/or Clarification of Various Supreme Court Rules and Resolutions," and providing inter alia:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    For said purpose, the following are considered en banc cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the Judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00, or both.

    x       x       x


    This resolution was amended on March 16, 1993 and November 23, 1993, but the aforequoted provision was maintained.

    Indeed, to require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrative matters or cases regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docket and undue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrative matters, since even cases involving the penalty of reprimand would require action by the Court en banc. This would subvert the constitutional injunction for the Court to adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court or the lower courts, and the very purpose of authorizing the Court to sit en banc or in divisions of three five or seven members. (Emphasis supplied).

    In his attempt to muddle and confuse the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820, the respondent relies on the penultimate paragraph in said decision, which states as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    What we are saying is that, although appellee has not sufficiently proved his filiation to the late Guillermo Lumapas, the fact that he has a legal title over the subject land entitles him to the possession thereof, pending the final determination of the validity of the title issued to him in an appropriate proceeding. 19

    In Edwards v. Arce, 20 this Court has clarified that the dispositive portion is the only portion of a judgment which becomes the subject of execution. Here, the dispositive portion of the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820 is unequivocal and requires no interpretation as regards the absolute and unconditional nature of the complainant’s right of possession over the subject lot. The dispositive portion reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and a new one entered as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) Declaring that Gregorio Lumapas has not sufficiently proved that he is the son of Guillermo Lumapas;

    (2) Declaring Gregorio [Lumapas] to have the right of possession over lot 4329; and,

    No pronouncement as to costs.

    SO ORDERED. 21 (Emphasis supplied).

    Clearly therefore, the complainant has the right of possession pending the determination of the validity of his title. Moreover, it is absurd to recognize the right of possession of the complainant and in the same stroke makes it dependent on a determination of the validity of his title. Lastly, respondent’s interpretation, which would render nugatory the complainant’s right to possession, is no longer called for.cralaw : red

    The respondent’s invocation of double jeopardy is likewise unavailing. The instant administrative case involves the respondent’s second refusal to issue the writ of execution, hence with distinct sanction. That the respondent was administratively punished in this Court’s previous Resolution dated June 27, 2000, for refusing to perform a ministerial act will not shield him from another instance of administrative discipline in the present case.

    Finally, the respondent’s fear that the adverse party in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820 would administratively charge him for illegally issuing the writ of possession if he issues a writ of possession in favor of the complainant is baseless, at most merely speculative. He invents a false dilemma from an erroneous premise.

    Coming now to the question of the respondent’s administrative liability, this Court finds the imposition of administrative penalties proper. It is the respondent’s ministerial duty to issue the writ of execution following the finality of the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820, and after, the CA issued in a separate case, a writ of mandamus ordering the issuance of said writ of execution. As this Court stated in its Resolution dated June 27, 2000, respondent had no option but to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the CA and to issue the writ of execution, its refusal to obey being "a clear violation of the order of, and a manifest disrespect towards, a court of superior jurisdiction." This directive notwithstanding, up to now the respondent has obstinately refused to issue a writ of execution.

    It is hardly necessary to remind respondent that judges should respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, much more the Highest Tribunal of the land from which all other courts should take their bearings. 22 A resolution of the Supreme Court is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. 23 If at all, this omission not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in respondent’s character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders and directives which is only too deserving of reproof. 24

    The delay in the execution of the Court of Appeals’ decision despite its having attained finality as early as March 13, 1995 works great injustice to the complainant. It is an injustice that this Court cannot countenance. Indeed, it is frustrating for the complainant to be declared that he possesses the legal right to occupy a piece of land and have that same right trampled upon by Respondent. If the people believe that they cannot expect justice from the courts, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. 25 Courts exist to promote justice. 26 The adage that justice delayed is justice denied finds particular application in this case. We have often said that every officer or employee in the judiciary is duty-bound to obey the orders and processes of this Court without the least delay and to exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism. 27

    Indifference or defiance to the Court’s orders or resolutions may be punished with dismissal, suspension, or fine as warranted by the circumstances. 28 Gross ignorance of the law is also punishable by: (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government owned and controlled corporations; (2) suspension from office without pay and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000 under Section 11, 29 Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Under the present circumstances, we find that the recommendation of the Investigating Justice needs to be upgraded. Having been previously warned, respondent judge deserves the ultimate administrative penalty, i.e. dismissal from the service.

    WHEREFORE, for refusing to fulfill a ministerial duty and for disobedience to an order issued by a superior court, as well as for gross ignorance of the law, respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin, Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, is ordered DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits due him except for accrued leave benefits, if any. He is also declared DISQUALIFIED from employment in any position in the government service including government-owned or controlled corporations. He is hereby ordered to VACATE his sala upon receipt of this decision, which is effective immediately.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

    Austria-Martinez, J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 225–226.

    2. Lumapas v. Tamin, 334 SCRA 391 (2000).

    3. 334 SCRA 397.

    4. Rollo, pp. 205–206.

    5. Id. at 193–197.

    6. Id. at 227–231.

    7. Id. at 233–234.

    8. Id. at 213–221.

    9. SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

    10. Rollo, p. 216.

    11. Id. at 218–220.

    12. Id. at 281.

    13. Id. at 247–248.

    14. Id. at 281–282.

    15. Id. at 285–299.

    16. Icasiano, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 95642, 28 May 1992, 200 SCRA 377, 383.

    17. 316 Phil. 85, 94–96 (1995).

    18. Sec. 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

    19. Rollo, p. 100.

    20. 98 Phil. 688, 692 (1956).

    21. Supra, note 19.

    22. Guerrero v. Judge Deray, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, 10 December 2002, p. 7.

    23. Josep v. Judge Abarquez, 330 Phil. 352, 359 (1996).

    24. Supra, note 22.

    25. In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, 602 (1949).

    26. Cuaresma v. Enriquez, A.M. No. MTJ-91-608, 20 September 1995, 248 SCRA 454, 459.

    27. Martinez v. Zoleta, A.M. No. MTJ-94-904, 29 September 1999, 315 SCRA 438, 449.

    28. Guerrero v. Deray, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, 10 December 2002, p. 8.

    29. SEC. 11. Sanctions. — A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;

    2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or

    3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

    B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or

    2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00

    C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00 and/or

    2. Censure;

    3. Reprimand;

    4. Admonition with warning.

    A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519   June 26, 2003 - GREGORIO LIMPOT LUMAPAS v. CAMILO E. TAMIN


    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