September 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. MTJ-08-1705 : September 01, 2008] CORAZON TANGO V. JUDGE TRANQUILINO V. RAMOS :
[A.M. No. MTJ-08-1705 : September 01, 2008]
CORAZON TANGO V. JUDGE TRANQUILINO V. RAMOS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 01 September 2008:
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1705 (Corazon Tango v. Judge Tranquilino V. Ramos)
The instant administrative matter stemmed from a verified letter-complaint of Corazon Tango dated March 15, 2006, charging then Judge Tranquilino V. Ramos of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Branch 2 in Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya, with grave abuse of authority relative to Civil Case No. 28 entitled Bernardo Asuncion v. Toribio Cahimari and Corazon Tango, a case for forcible entry decided by Judge Ramos as acting presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya.
In her complaint, docketed as A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 07-1868-MTJ (later redocketed as A.M. No. MTJ-08-1705), Tango, one of the defendants in the aforementioned civil case, averred that, upon order of Judge Ramos, she and her son, Toribio Cahimari, were arrested on September 22, 2005 and detained for one month for indirect contempt of court. She claimed not having been notified of the hearing on the contempt proceedings and that, instead of being held in Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya, they were brought to a jail in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. According to Tango, Judge Ramos, when asked, told them that they were being arrested and imprisoned for their refusal to agree to his proposal to halve the contested property between the parties m Civil Case No. 28. Judge Ramos, so Tango alleged, even dispatched an emissary to convince her to accede to his proposed property settlement in exchange for her and Cahimari�s release.
In his Comment dated September 11, 2006, Judge Ramos stated that he had long decided Civil Case No. 28 against Tango and Cahimari and that his decision had effectively been affirmed, first, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), then by the Court of Appeals (CA), and finally by the Supreme Court. A writ and an alias writ of execution had in fact been issued, but the final decision remained unenforced due to the dilatory tactics employed by Tango. When the sheriff finally succeeded in ousting Tango and her son from the contested area, they lost no time in forcibly reentering the premises, prompting Bernardo Asuncion to file, on February 8, 2001, a motion to declare them in contempt of court. Continuing, Judge Ramos alleged that after due hearing, he issued an order citing Tango and her son for contempt and meting on them the penalty of one month imprisonment. Their detention, however, did not deter them from later reentering the disputed land.
Per Resolution dated June 13, 2007, the Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), referred the case to Judge Godofredo M. Naui, Executive Judge of the RTC in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In his Report dated October 1, 2007, the investigating judge found the charge for grave abuse of authority to have been predicated on the following inculpatory allegations: (1) imprisonment without due process; (2) detention in Solano instead of in Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya; and (3) coercion to settle a civil case. He recommended the dismissal of this particular charge.
The recommendation and the findings supporting the report are well-taken.
The first allegation depicting respondent judge as having denied complainant her day in court with respect to the contempt charge is utterly false. As the records show, the MTC resolved Civil Case No. 28 on July 24, 1991. This decision was successively affirmed, first, by the RTC, then by the CA, and finally by this Court and entry of judgment was made on July 8, 1992.
With the finality of judgment, Asuncion, as prevailing party, twice sought and twice secured the corresponding writ of execution, but somehow was unable to secure possession of the disputed land. In the course of implementing the writ, Asuncion filed a motion to cite complainant and Cahimari in contempt of court, but respondent judge denied the motion.
On March 31, 2001, the sheriff placed Asuncion in possession of the land in question. Barely two weeks thereafter, or on April 16, 2001, Asuncion moved to revive his contempt motion, alleging that complainant and Cahimari refused to vacate the land. Hearings on the motion were conducted. After thirty-one (31) resettings, a decision was issued in February 2005, finding complainant and Cahimari guilty of indirect contempt. Clearly then, complainant had been given more than sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard. As pointedly observed by the investigating judge, complainant and Cahimari should be the last persons to cry "lack of due process."
The charge of abuse of authority arising from the detention of complainant and Cahimari in the municipality of Solano instead of in Kasibu is without merit for one simple reason: When respondent judge issued the detention order, the jail in Solano was where all detention prisoners from all over the province of Nueva Vizcaya, including those in Kasibu, were held.
Finally, the charge that respondent judge ordered complainant and Cahimari detained as a coercive measure to have them to agree to his proposal of settlement is bereft of factual basis. The fact of the matter is that both mother and son were unwilling all along to accept defeat in Civil Case No. 28, insisting even during the investigation of this complaint that the Ilonggots, the indigenous tribe to which they belong, owned the disputed land since time immemorial. In the final analysis, their detention arose out of their incessant disregard of a final and executory court decision, not their refusal to accede settle. And not lost on the Court is the fact that, as found by the investigating judge, the parties themselves explored the possibility of settlement even during the trial of Civil Case No. 28, a circumstance tending to belie complainant�s allegation of having been detained because she thumbed down respondent judge�s proposal for them to share the land with Asuncion.
In all then, complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proving by substantial evidence the averments of her complaint charging respondent judge with grave abuse of authority.[1] The dismissal of the underlying complaint is, therefore, in order.
WHEREFORE, the charge of Grave Abuse of Authority against respondent judge Tranquilino V. Ramos (now retired) is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1705 (Corazon Tango v. Judge Tranquilino V. Ramos)
The instant administrative matter stemmed from a verified letter-complaint of Corazon Tango dated March 15, 2006, charging then Judge Tranquilino V. Ramos of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Branch 2 in Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya, with grave abuse of authority relative to Civil Case No. 28 entitled Bernardo Asuncion v. Toribio Cahimari and Corazon Tango, a case for forcible entry decided by Judge Ramos as acting presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya.
In her complaint, docketed as A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 07-1868-MTJ (later redocketed as A.M. No. MTJ-08-1705), Tango, one of the defendants in the aforementioned civil case, averred that, upon order of Judge Ramos, she and her son, Toribio Cahimari, were arrested on September 22, 2005 and detained for one month for indirect contempt of court. She claimed not having been notified of the hearing on the contempt proceedings and that, instead of being held in Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya, they were brought to a jail in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. According to Tango, Judge Ramos, when asked, told them that they were being arrested and imprisoned for their refusal to agree to his proposal to halve the contested property between the parties m Civil Case No. 28. Judge Ramos, so Tango alleged, even dispatched an emissary to convince her to accede to his proposed property settlement in exchange for her and Cahimari�s release.
In his Comment dated September 11, 2006, Judge Ramos stated that he had long decided Civil Case No. 28 against Tango and Cahimari and that his decision had effectively been affirmed, first, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), then by the Court of Appeals (CA), and finally by the Supreme Court. A writ and an alias writ of execution had in fact been issued, but the final decision remained unenforced due to the dilatory tactics employed by Tango. When the sheriff finally succeeded in ousting Tango and her son from the contested area, they lost no time in forcibly reentering the premises, prompting Bernardo Asuncion to file, on February 8, 2001, a motion to declare them in contempt of court. Continuing, Judge Ramos alleged that after due hearing, he issued an order citing Tango and her son for contempt and meting on them the penalty of one month imprisonment. Their detention, however, did not deter them from later reentering the disputed land.
Per Resolution dated June 13, 2007, the Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), referred the case to Judge Godofredo M. Naui, Executive Judge of the RTC in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In his Report dated October 1, 2007, the investigating judge found the charge for grave abuse of authority to have been predicated on the following inculpatory allegations: (1) imprisonment without due process; (2) detention in Solano instead of in Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya; and (3) coercion to settle a civil case. He recommended the dismissal of this particular charge.
The recommendation and the findings supporting the report are well-taken.
The first allegation depicting respondent judge as having denied complainant her day in court with respect to the contempt charge is utterly false. As the records show, the MTC resolved Civil Case No. 28 on July 24, 1991. This decision was successively affirmed, first, by the RTC, then by the CA, and finally by this Court and entry of judgment was made on July 8, 1992.
With the finality of judgment, Asuncion, as prevailing party, twice sought and twice secured the corresponding writ of execution, but somehow was unable to secure possession of the disputed land. In the course of implementing the writ, Asuncion filed a motion to cite complainant and Cahimari in contempt of court, but respondent judge denied the motion.
On March 31, 2001, the sheriff placed Asuncion in possession of the land in question. Barely two weeks thereafter, or on April 16, 2001, Asuncion moved to revive his contempt motion, alleging that complainant and Cahimari refused to vacate the land. Hearings on the motion were conducted. After thirty-one (31) resettings, a decision was issued in February 2005, finding complainant and Cahimari guilty of indirect contempt. Clearly then, complainant had been given more than sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard. As pointedly observed by the investigating judge, complainant and Cahimari should be the last persons to cry "lack of due process."
The charge of abuse of authority arising from the detention of complainant and Cahimari in the municipality of Solano instead of in Kasibu is without merit for one simple reason: When respondent judge issued the detention order, the jail in Solano was where all detention prisoners from all over the province of Nueva Vizcaya, including those in Kasibu, were held.
Finally, the charge that respondent judge ordered complainant and Cahimari detained as a coercive measure to have them to agree to his proposal of settlement is bereft of factual basis. The fact of the matter is that both mother and son were unwilling all along to accept defeat in Civil Case No. 28, insisting even during the investigation of this complaint that the Ilonggots, the indigenous tribe to which they belong, owned the disputed land since time immemorial. In the final analysis, their detention arose out of their incessant disregard of a final and executory court decision, not their refusal to accede settle. And not lost on the Court is the fact that, as found by the investigating judge, the parties themselves explored the possibility of settlement even during the trial of Civil Case No. 28, a circumstance tending to belie complainant�s allegation of having been detained because she thumbed down respondent judge�s proposal for them to share the land with Asuncion.
In all then, complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proving by substantial evidence the averments of her complaint charging respondent judge with grave abuse of authority.[1] The dismissal of the underlying complaint is, therefore, in order.
WHEREFORE, the charge of Grave Abuse of Authority against respondent judge Tranquilino V. Ramos (now retired) is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Barbers v. Lauio, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-00-1568, February 15, 2001, 351 SCRA 606, 634.
