February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1496-RTJ : February 09, 2009] DOMINGO C. GAMALINDA V. JUDGE ARSENIO P. ADRIANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 63, TARLAC CITY, JUDGE MARVIN B. MANGINO AND CLERK OF COURT III JULIETA M. BAUTISTA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), BRANCH 1, TARLAC CITY :
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1496-RTJ : February 09, 2009]
DOMINGO C. GAMALINDA V. JUDGE ARSENIO P. ADRIANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 63, TARLAC CITY, JUDGE MARVIN B. MANGINO AND CLERK OF COURT III JULIETA M. BAUTISTA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), BRANCH 1, TARLAC CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 February 2009:
A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1496-RTJ (Domingo C. Gamalinda v. Judge Arsenio P. Adriano, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, Tarlac City, Judge Marvin B. Mangino and Clerk of Court III Julieta M. Bautista, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tarlac City). � This resolves the letter-complaint[1] filed by complainant charging respondents with abuse of authority and dishonesty. The controversy stemmed from an ejectment case filed by a certain Patrocinio V. Sumat against complainant's relatives, Jesus and Joy Gamalinda. Complainant claims that the property in question belongs to him and that Jesus and Joy Gamalinda occupied the same with his consent until Sumat sought to eject them therefrom. Complainant thus filed a complaint against Sumat for falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents which was raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Mangino. Believing that respondent Judge Mangino was not being an impartial judge, complainant filed on 26 August 2002 the instant case for abuse of authority, conspiracy and deception against herein respondents. He likewise filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against them for violation of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However, the Ombudsman found the acts complained of related to the performance of the respondents' duty as officers of the Court and thus deferred to the jurisdiction of the Office of the Administrator.[2]
After the requisite pleadings were filed, this Court resolved to dismiss the administrative complaint for lack of merit.[3] Complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated 29 September 2003.[4] His motion dated 12 May 2004 to submit newly discovered evidence was likewise denied in a resolution[5] dated 29 June 2005 and this Court considered the instant case closed and terminated in a resolution[6] dated 31 August 2005.
Complainant filed another letter-complaint dated 5 March 2006 reiterating his previous complaint against the herein respondents.[7] Finding the said letter-complaint merely resurrects the previous complaint after the matter had already been closed and terminated, this Court dismissed the letter-complaint dated 5 March 2006, beseeching the Court to consider the dismissal of this case final and thereafter, to accept no more pleadings from complainant raising the same and identical issues against herein respondents.[8]
Unfazed, complainant comes to us for the third time seeking to reopen the instant case. It is readily apparent that this letter-complaint is a third cycle of review regarding a subject matter which had already been decided with finality years ago. It bears stressing that litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause therein should be laid at rest.[9] The instant case is no exception.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The complainant is ADMONISHED for having raised the same and identical issues against respondents in defiance to our resolution dated 23 October 2006, and is hereby STERNLY WARNED not to commit the same or similar acts under pain of contempt.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson. Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales. Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Arturo D. Brion, Members. Second Division, this 9th day of February, 2009.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1496-RTJ (Domingo C. Gamalinda v. Judge Arsenio P. Adriano, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, Tarlac City, Judge Marvin B. Mangino and Clerk of Court III Julieta M. Bautista, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tarlac City). � This resolves the letter-complaint[1] filed by complainant charging respondents with abuse of authority and dishonesty. The controversy stemmed from an ejectment case filed by a certain Patrocinio V. Sumat against complainant's relatives, Jesus and Joy Gamalinda. Complainant claims that the property in question belongs to him and that Jesus and Joy Gamalinda occupied the same with his consent until Sumat sought to eject them therefrom. Complainant thus filed a complaint against Sumat for falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents which was raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Mangino. Believing that respondent Judge Mangino was not being an impartial judge, complainant filed on 26 August 2002 the instant case for abuse of authority, conspiracy and deception against herein respondents. He likewise filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against them for violation of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However, the Ombudsman found the acts complained of related to the performance of the respondents' duty as officers of the Court and thus deferred to the jurisdiction of the Office of the Administrator.[2]
After the requisite pleadings were filed, this Court resolved to dismiss the administrative complaint for lack of merit.[3] Complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated 29 September 2003.[4] His motion dated 12 May 2004 to submit newly discovered evidence was likewise denied in a resolution[5] dated 29 June 2005 and this Court considered the instant case closed and terminated in a resolution[6] dated 31 August 2005.
Complainant filed another letter-complaint dated 5 March 2006 reiterating his previous complaint against the herein respondents.[7] Finding the said letter-complaint merely resurrects the previous complaint after the matter had already been closed and terminated, this Court dismissed the letter-complaint dated 5 March 2006, beseeching the Court to consider the dismissal of this case final and thereafter, to accept no more pleadings from complainant raising the same and identical issues against herein respondents.[8]
Unfazed, complainant comes to us for the third time seeking to reopen the instant case. It is readily apparent that this letter-complaint is a third cycle of review regarding a subject matter which had already been decided with finality years ago. It bears stressing that litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause therein should be laid at rest.[9] The instant case is no exception.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The complainant is ADMONISHED for having raised the same and identical issues against respondents in defiance to our resolution dated 23 October 2006, and is hereby STERNLY WARNED not to commit the same or similar acts under pain of contempt.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson. Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales. Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Arturo D. Brion, Members. Second Division, this 9th day of February, 2009.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 132-134.
[2]Id. at 59-62, 116-118.
[3] In a resolution dated 16 December 2002; id. at 45-46.
[4] Id. at 92-93.
[5] Id. at 100.
[6] Id, at 102.
[7]Id. at 104-106.
[8] In a resolution dated 23 October 2006, id. at 129-130.
[9] Ramos v. Combong, Jr., G.R. No. 144273, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 499, 504; Engr. Tupaz v. Hon. Apurillo, 487 Phil. 271 (2004); Rene Knecht and Knecht, Inc. v. United Cigarette Corp., 433 Phil. 380(2002).
