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
 

   
September-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-03-1705 September 2, 2003 - BALDOMERO DE VERA SOLIMAN, JR. v. PRINCESITO D. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 138238 September 2, 2003 - EDUARDO BALITAOSAN v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS

  • G.R. No. 146980 September 2, 2003 - LUZ E. TAGANAS, ET AL. v. MELITON G. EMUSLAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3967 September 3, 2003 - ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. WILFREDO OCA

  • A.C. No. 6084 September 3, 2003 - FELICITAS BERBANO v. WENCESLAO BARCELONA

  • A.M. No. 02-10-614-RTC September 3, 2003 - RE: EDITORIAL OF THE NEGROS CHRONICLE AND OTHER CHARGES OF A CONCERNED CITIZEN AGAINST JUDGE ROGELIO CARAMPATAN

  • A.M. No. OCA-01-6 September 3, 2003 - DOMINADOR V. ASPIRAS v. ESMERALDA ABALOS

  • A.M. No. P-01-1466 September 3, 2003 - EDUARDO F. BAGO v. JOEL FERAREN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1501 September 3, 2003 - ROMEO E. EJERCITO v. ILDEFONSO B. SUERTE

  • G.R. No. 131915 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE LACHICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136274 September 3, 2003 - SUNFLOWER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139400 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO WATIWAT

  • G.R. No. 140652 September 3, 2003 - OLIVERIO LAPERAL v. PABLO V. OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. 144312 September 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA TAN LEE

  • G.R. No. 145737 September 3, 2003 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT

  • G.R. No. 149617 September 3, 2003 - MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS v. MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS

  • G.R. No. 141527 September 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDY G. BOCALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1788 September 5, 2003 - JORGE F. ABELLA v. FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1430 September 8, 2003 - ROMEO B. SENSON v. HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 128296 September 8, 2003 - NASIPIT LUMBER CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152957 September 8, 2003 - FAUSTINO ESQUIVEL v. EDUARDO REYES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480 September 10, 2003 - TRINIDAD CABAHUG v. JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY

  • G.R. No. 91486 September 10, 2003 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107271 September 10, 2003 - CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL. v. MAURO T. ALLARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125329 September 10, 2003 - ANN BRIGITT LEONARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140762 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER C. ROXAS

  • G.R. No. 148912 September 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS

  • G.R. No. 151212 September 10, 2003 - TEN FORTY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. MARINA CRUZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1562 September 11, 2003 - ROMULO SG. VILLANUEVA v. CHARLIE C. LARCENA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1742 September 11, 2003 - AVELINA MADULA v. RUTH CRUZ SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 136286-89 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN G. DE TAZA

  • G.R. No. 138366 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN CAÑETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138569 September 11, 2003 - CONSOLIDATED BANK and TRUST CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144785 September 11, 2003 - YOLANDA GARCIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 145407 September 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONITO HEREVESE

  • G.R. No. 151081 September 11, 2003 - TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES v. PAXTON DEV’T. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153126 September 11, 2003 - MONTEREY FOODS CORP., ET AL. v. VICTORINO E. ESERJOSE

  • G.R. No. 153845 September 11, 2003 - EFREN P. SALVAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799 September 12, 2003 - MARIA CRISTINA OLONDRIZ PERTIERRA v. ALBERTO L. LERMA

  • G.R. No. 127206 September 12, 2003 - PERLA PALMA GIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135029 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 141600 September 12, 2003 - ROBERTO FULGENCIO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144639 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY GO

  • G.R. Nos. 144972-73 September 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO JUNAS

  • G.R. No. 133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 147814-15 September 16, 2003 - RAUL ZAPATOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 155278 September 16, 2003 - PRUDENCIO J. TANJUAN v. PHIL. POSTAL SAVINGS BANK

  • A.M. No. P-03-1740 September 17, 2003 - FRANKLIN Q. SUSA v. TEOFILA A. PEÑA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656 September 17, 2003 - EDGARDO D. BALSAMO v. PEDRO L. SUAN

  • G.R. No. 141120 September 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ

  • G.R. No. 146125 September 17, 2003 - NOVELTY PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1347 September 18, 2003 - BENJAMIN TUDTUD v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • A.M. No. P-00-1370 September 18, 2003 - ALEJANDRO PAREDES, ET AL. v. JERRY MARCELINO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1510 September 18, 2003 - MARY ANN PADUGANAN-PEÑARANDA v. GRACE L. SONGCUYA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1691 September 18, 2003 - JOSE S. SAÑEZ v. CARLOS B. RABINA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1703 September 18, 2003 - EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1724 September 18, 2003 - VICENTE ALVAREZ, Jr. v. JOSE R. MARTIN

  • A.M. No. P-03-1742 September 18, 2003 - SALVADOR L. BERNABE v. WINSTON T. EGUIA

  • G.R. No. 135559 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORENO OCUMEN

  • G.R. No. 135563 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY P. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 144913 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. GERONIMO C. CENIZA

  • G.R. No. 149627 September 18, 2003 - KENNETH O. NADELA v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL..

  • G.R. No. 152351 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMIL MALA

  • G.R. No. 152604 September 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO S.PEDRIGAL

  • G.R. No. 153571 September 18, 2003 - BENGUET MANAGEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156259 September 18, 2003 - GROGUN, INC. v. NAPOCOR

  • G.R. No. 157957 September 18, 2003 - CHARITO NAVAROSA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142974 September 22, 2003 - SPS. SHEM G. ALFARERO and AURELIA TAGALOG v. SPS. PETRA and SANCHO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. 152529 September 22, 2003 - SPS. HENDRIK and ALICIA S. BIESTERBOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1450 September 23, 2003 - RAMIRO S. DE JOYA v. AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509 September 23, 2003 - HELEN GAMBOA-MIJARES v. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1732 September 23, 2003 - ROSENINA O. UY, ET AL. v. LOLITA R. EDILO

  • G.R. No. 123140 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO CORTEZANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135446 September 23, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BPI

  • G.R. No. 136729 September 23, 2003 - ASTRO ELECTRONICS CORP., ET AL. v. PHIL. EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 138716-19 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PILLAS

  • G.R. No. 138725 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OLIVAR

  • G.R. No. 139360 September 23, 2003 - HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. EHSHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140982 September 23, 2003 - MARIO GUTIERREZ v. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141434 September 23, 2003 - ANTONIO LO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143132 September 23, 2003 - VAN MELLE PHILS. ET AL. v. VICTOR M. ENDAYA

  • G.R. No. 144533 September 23, 2003 - JIMMY L. BARNES v. TERESITA C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146786-88 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES T. DAÑO

  • G.R. No. 149295 September 23, 2003 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENEROSO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. 149370 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALEJO

  • G.R. No. 150905 September 23, 2003 - CITIBANK v. EFREN S. TEODORO

  • G.R. No. 151072 September 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151931 September 23, 2003 - ANAMER SALAZAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 152823-24 September 23, 2003 - RUFINA CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152998 September 23, 2003 - SIMON Q. AÑONUEVO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 156295 September 23, 2003 - MARCELO R. SORIANO v. SPS. RICARDO and ROSALINA GALIT

  • G.R. No. 156983 September 23, 2003 - In the Matter of the Application for the Habeas Corpus of JOSE VICTOR RIGOR y DANAO v. The Superintendent

  • A.M. No. P-00-1418 September 24, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CELESTINA B. CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 124293 September 24, 2003 - JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130087 September 24, 2003 - DIANA M. BARCELONA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136726 September 24, 2003 - PANFILO V. VILLARUEL v. REYNALDO D. FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148924 September 24, 2003 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153781 September 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 153885 & 156214 September 24, 2003 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. v. WMC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1746 September 26, 2003 - ROGER F. BORJA v. ZORAYDA H. SALCEDO

  • G.R. No. 130330 September 26, 2003 - FERNANDO GO v. MICHAEL TAN and LOLITA TAN

  • G.R. No. 141217 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO DUBAN

  • G.R. No. 144037 September 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL P. TUDTUD, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5480 September 29, 2003 - LEILANI OCAMPO-INGCOCO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO G. YRREVERRE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 137370-71 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL OCO

  • G.R. No. 139185 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 148902 September 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ANDRADE

  • G.R. No. 149718 September 29, 2003 - MARIO VALEROSO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 152057 September 29, 2003 - PT & T CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 5854 September 30, 2003 - NORA E. MIWA v. RENE O. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 127593 September 30, 2003 - CLARA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136742-43 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO Y. ALFARO

  • G.R. Nos. 140514-15 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE IGNAS

  • G.R. No. 142751 September 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO OPELIÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143010 September 30, 2003 - MIGUEL DANOFRATA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 144230 September 30, 2003 - ARTURO G. MACKAY v. ADORACION G. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148332 September 30, 2003 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MADRIGAL WAN HAI LINES CORP.

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. RTJ-03-1788   September 5, 2003 - JORGE F. ABELLA v. FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [A.M. No. RTJ-03-1788. September 5, 2003.]

    JORGE F. ABELLA, Complainant, v. Judge FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Cagayan de Oro City, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    Men and women of the bench are the visible representations of law and justice. 1 Judges are therefore expected to be circumspect in the performance of their duties. 2 And rightly so, for theirs is a duty to administer justice in a manner that inspires confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

    The Case and the Facts


    The Administrative Complaint, 3 filed by Jorge F. Abella, charges Judge Francisco L. Calingin of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City (Branch 22) with "manifest bias, gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority." The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) summarized the factual antecedents as follows:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "Complainant, who is the private complainant in the aforesaid case, alleges that sometime on April 1998, he discovered some missing items in his pawnshop. About 271 pouches yielded tissue papers, coins and other materials to make it appear that [the] contents were still inside the pouches. After inventories, the total value of the stolen articles amounted to P1,079,665.00.

    "He filed a case for Qualified Theft against Imelda Salarda Awa, the appraiser and cashier of the pawnshop. On 28 September 1998, the Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the prosecution of Imelda S. Awa for Qualified Theft and, an information was subsequently filed in court.

    "According to complainant, while the case was still under preliminary investigation, he brought some pieces of jewelry amounting to P333,790.00 as evidence. The [pieces of] jewelry [were] deposited with the investigating fiscal for safekeeping.

    "Subsequently, the case was assigned to RTC, Branch 22 presided by herein respondent Judge. After a series of hearings and conferences, the parties reached a compromise settlement of the civil aspect and the case was eventually dismissed.

    "On 23 August 2000, the counsel for the accused filed a ‘Motion Directing the Office of the City Prosecutor to Allow the Accused to Retrieve the Pieces of Evidence Deposited Thereat.’ After a hearing, respondent Judge issued an Order dated 1 September 2000 granting the Motion.

    "On 11 September 2000, complainant’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent Judge reconsidered his Order dated 1 September 2000, and directed that the pieces of [jewelry] be turned over to him (complainant). However, the pieces of jewelry were already withdrawn by the accused from the City Prosecutor’s Office.

    "The counsel for the accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the court. He then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court but the same was later dismissed and the case was declared closed and terminated for their failure to file the petition within the period granted by the Court.

    "Complainant claims the filing of the Petition was a ploy to delay the proceedings considering that the pieces of jewelry were already in the possession of the accused.

    "Since the judgment of the court has become final and executory, complainant filed a Motion for Execution praying that said jewelry be turned over to him as rightful owner thereof. Respondent Judge denied the Motion for Execution as well as the Motion for Reconsideration subsequently filed by complainant.

    "Complainant avers that respondent Judge’s failure to allow the execution of his own order which has already attained finality has no basis and obviously crafted in order to favor the accused who is in possession of the jewelry.

    " [In his Comment dated June 4, 2002, respondent Judge denied the allegations in the Complaint.] He explains that complainant is the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 98-845, . . . for Qualified Theft. Before trial commenced, the parties executed a Compromise Agreement which settled the civil aspect of the case. Thereafter, a Motion to Dismiss was filed by the Prosecution and the same was granted by the court in its Order dated 18 August 2000.

    "On 24 August 2000, Accused, through counsel, filed a Motion Directing the Office of the City Prosecutor to Allow the Accused to Retrieve the Pieces of Evidence Deposited Thereat stating that said evidence belong to the accused as it is covered/included in the Compromise Agreement. There being no opposition interposed by the Public and Private Prosecutors, the motion was granted (Order dated 1 September 2000).

    "Thereafter, the Private Prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated 1 September 2000 claiming that the pieces of evidence were deposited and owned by herein complainant. Acting on said Motion, the court ordered that the pieces of evidence be turned over to the private complainant and, if ever the accused has taken possession of said exhibits, the same should be turned over to the City Prosecutor’s Office (Order dated 15 September 2000).

    "Accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated 15 September 2000 but the court denied said motion (Order dated 3 October 2000). The accused filed with the Supreme Court a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review on Certiorari which was granted. However, in a subsequent Resolution dated 26 February 2001, the Court declared the case closed and terminated and that the Judgment sought to be reviewed has become final and executory due to the failure of the accused’s counsel to file the petition within the extended period.

    "Meanwhile, a new counsel for the private complainant (herein complainant) entered his appearance. The new private prosecutor filed on 30 May 2001 a Motion for Execution of the Order dated 18 August 2000. In its Order dated 9 July 2001, the court granted the Motion. Consequently, a Writ of Execution was issued by the court on 24 July 2001. However, even before a Return of the Writ can be submitted by the Sheriff, the private prosecutor filed another Motion to Execute Order dated 3 October 2000. The court denied the Motion for Execution as well as the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

    "Respondent Judge explains that the filing of the second Motion for Execution while the Writ of Execution was still in effect is premature and would only be a duplication of a previous order issued by the court. Significantly, the subject matter of the Writ of Execution dated 24 July 2001 was the content of the Compromise Agreement entered into by the parties. The agreement contained the civil liability of the accused, the manner of payment and the liability of the father of the accused in the event the latter fails to comply with her obligation.

    "If pursuant to the Writ of Execution, the sheriff was able to levy properties of the father sufficient to answer the obligation of the accused, then there is no more necessity to issue another Writ of Execution. As regards the jewelry submitted by the complainant before the City Prosecutor, the Orders dated 15 September 2000 and 3 October 2000 were sufficient for the complainant to demand the return of the pieces of jewelry. Records, however, revealed that complainant did nothing to press for the return of said jewelry even after he discovered that the same were already withdrawn by the accused.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "Respondent Judge notes that in the Motions filed by the complainant, the latter failed to describe with particularity the pieces of jewelry submitted to the City Prosecutor. Such description is fundamental in a case for delivery of personal property or replevin. It is only in this instant administrative case that he learned that there was actually an inventory conducted thereon. In a sense, the Order (dated 3 October 2000) did not yet attain finality because there are still things incumbent upon the complainant, like providing a description of the property sought to be recovered, which he has not yet done." 4

    Evaluation and Recommendation of the OCA

    The OCA opined that respondent erred in denying the Motion to Execute the October 3, 2000 Order, which had resolved with finality the issue of who had the right to possess the pieces of jewelry deposited as evidence. It also faulted him for failing to distinguish this latter Motion from the earlier one that he had granted, involving a different and distinct matter — the Compromise Agreement.

    Accordingly, the OCA recommended that he "be reprimanded and advised to be more circumspect in the performance of his judicial duties with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely." 5

    The Court’s Ruling


    We agree with the findings of the OCA, but increase the penalty consistent with Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

    Administrative Liability

    Judges, being the visible representations of law and justice 6 are expected to be circumspect in the performance of their tasks, 7 for it is their duty to administer justice in a way that inspires confidence in the integrity of the justice system.

    For this reason, the Code of Judicial Conduct requires high standards of competence, integrity and independence. 8 It mandates judges to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence. 9 Indeed, it has been held that the failure to consider and apply a basic and elementary rule, law or principle is not only inexcusable, but also renders magistrates susceptible to administrative sanctions for incompetence and gross ignorance of the law. 10

    In this case, it is very clear that respondent disregarded a basic, unequivocal rule that execution shall issue as a matter of right when the order becomes final and executory. 11 It is moreover hornbook doctrine that when this point is reached, the trial court has the ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution to enforce the order. 12 The rule admits of exceptions, 13 but none obtained in this case. Hence, it was mandatory for respondent to issue the writ prayed for.

    Unsatisfactory are judge Calingin’s excuses for his refusal to enforce his October 3, 2000 Order directing the return of the jewelry to private complainant.

    First, the Order was final and executory. This Court, in a Resolution dated February 26, 2000, categorically declared it to be so when it denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the accused. Hence, respondent’s insistence to the contrary constituted a contumacious disregard of that Resolution.

    Second, unacceptable is the alleged lack of knowledge of respondent that the exhibits were inventoried. To ascertain this fact, he needed only to check with the public prosecutor handling the case. Moreover, had he indeed been inclined to obtain the completion of the purported deficiency, he should have ordered an inventory before, not after, allowing the accused to withdraw the exhibits.

    Third, there is no basis for the contention of respondent that the second Motion for Execution was premature and duplicitous. As the OCA correctly observed, the two Motions for Execution dealt with separate and distinct matters. The first pertained to the Compromise Agreement; and the second, to the return of the exhibits. His lame excuse underlines his failure to ascertain the facts diligently before deciding the matters raised before his court. 14

    Lastly, the records do not bear out the claim of respondent that complainant did not at all demand the return of the subject jewelry. On September 11, 2000, the latter moved for a reconsideration of the former’s September 1, 2000 Order, which had granted the Motion of the accused to retrieve the pieces of evidence deposited at the Office of the City Prosecutor. Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration was granted on September 15, 2000. The Court thereby directed the return of the exhibits, which at the time had already been withdrawn by the accused.

    Respondent showed gross ignorance of the law when he denied the Motion filed by complainant on August 1, 2000. The Motion had sought the execution of the final and executory Order dated October 3, 2000, detecting the return of the jewelry to the latter. The former also inflicted grave injustice to complainant by effectively consenting to the perpetration of thievery against the latter. Under the circumstances, we find the judge’s action sanctionable.

    The OCA recommended a mere reprimand. However, Section 10 of Rule 140 15 of the Rules of Court provides that judges found guilty of the serious charge of gross ignorance of the law 16 may be a) dismissed from the service with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office; or b) suspended for three (3) months without salary and benefits or c) fined by not less than P20,000 but not more than P40,000.

    WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and is FINED P20,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or of a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Puno, Corona and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.

    Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Spouses Dizon v. Hon. Calimag, 417 Phil. 778, September 20, 2001.

    2. Re: Release by Judge Manuel T. Muro, RTC, Branch 54, Manila, of an Accused in a Non-Bailable Offense, 367 SCRA 285, October 17, 2001.

    3. Rollo, pp. 2-7. The Complaint is dated December 5, 2001.

    4. OCA Report, pp. 1-4; rollo, pp. 96-99.

    5. OCA Report, p. 6; rollo, p. 101.

    6. Spouses Dizon v. Hon. Calimag, supra.

    7. Supra, note 2.

    8. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    9. Canon 3, Rule 3.01; and Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    10. Spouses Monterola v. Judge Jose F. Caoibes, AM No. RTJ-01-1620, March 18, 2002; citing De Guzman Jr. v. Sison, 355 SCRA 69, March 26, 2001.

    11. 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

    12. Mayuga v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 1078, August 30, 1996; Bachrach Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 483, September 25, 1998.

    13. Execution of a final judgment or order may be stayed or precluded under any of the following conditions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1) Equitable grounds render its execution impossible or unjust due to facts and events transpiring after the judgment has become executory (Ananias Soco v. Court of Appeals, 331 Phil. 753, October 21, 1996).

    2) There has been a change in the situation of the parties, which makes execution inequitable (Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., GR No. 127371, April 25, 2002 citing Bachrach Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra; and Amor v. Jugo, 77 Phil. 703).

    3) The judgment has been novated by the parties (Dormitorio v. Fernandez, 72 SCRA 388, August 21, 1976).

    4) Injunctive relief is prayed for and granted (Rule 38, Sec. 5).

    5) The five-year period to enforce the judgment has expired (Cunanan v. Court of Appeals, 134 Phil. 338, September 28, 1968).

    6) The judgment is incomplete or is conditional (Ignacio v. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605, April 30, 1946; Cu Unjieng v. Mabalacat Sugar Co., 70 Phil. 380, June 29, 1940).

    14. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    15. This was the rule in effect at the time respondent performed the acts complained of The amendments to this rule took effect on October 1, 2001.

    16. 3 (9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

    A.M. No. RTJ-03-1788   September 5, 2003 - JORGE F. ABELLA v. FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN


    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