ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 97-254-MTJ. January 13, 1999]

ANIANO A. ALBON vs. JUDGE JERRY B. GONZALES.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 13, 1999.

A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 97-254-MTJ (Aniano A. Albon v. Judge Jerry B. Gonzales, Metropolitan Trial Court, Marikina City.)

This case stems form a verified complaint1 [Rollo, pp. 1-8.] dated October 28, 1996 filed before this Court seeking the dismissal from the service of respondent Judge Jerry B. Gonzales for gross ignorance of the law relative to Civil Case No. 95-6210 entitled "Aniano A. Albon v. Spouses Florentino and Dolores Miguel" for unlawful detainer.

On June 28, 1996, Judge Gonzales rendered a decision2 [Rollo, pp. 9-13.] in favor of complainant Albon in the above-mentioned case, ordering the spouses Miguel and all persons claiming under them to vacate the premises, a parcel of land with improvements thereon, situated at Soliven Ave. corner Italy St., Marikina Heights Subdivision, Marikina City, and directing them to pay a monthly compensation of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000), starting on September 12, 1995, until they leave the premises, plus costs of suit.

For defendant spouses' failure to file a supersedeas bond, on July 29, 1996, complainant filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was submitted for resolution on August 5, 1996. Instead of promptly acting on aid motion, respondent judge reset the hearing to August 26, 1996, gave defendant spouses three (3) days from August 26, 1996 to oppose the motion and granted defendants' entry of appearance and notice of appeal filed on August 5, 1996. Defendants did not file any opposition to said motion, and yet, respondent judge still failed to rule on the motion for the issuance of the writ of execution. On September 17, 1996, respondent judge issued an order3 [Rollo, p. 46.] claiming that he had lost jurisdiction to act on the motion due to the perfection of the appeal to the RTC.

Complainant charges respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law, particularly Section 8, Rule 704 [Now section 19, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court.] of the Rules of Court, for not issuing the writ of execution pending appeal despite the absence of supersedeas bond and the non-filing of monthly deposits in court, as mandated by both law and jurisprudence. Thus, complainant prays for respondent judge's dismissal from the service.

In his comment5 [Rollo, pp. 25-36.] dated May 16, 1997, respondent judge denies the charge and instead claims that his rulings are in accordance with law and jurisprudence. He asserts that this case was filed because complainant should be administratively charged for violating the lawyer's oath for: 1) concealing that he is a senior partner of the law firm which represents him, to claim attorney's fees; 2) filing this groundless, false, and unlawful suit, and 3) failure to conduct himself as a lawyer to the best of his knowledge and discretion.

The Office of the Court Administrator, in its report dated December 29, 2997, found that respondent judge ignored both law and jurisprudence in failing to grant the writ of execution, despite the failure of defendants to post a supersedeas bond and deposit the monthly rentals in court. As stated in San Manuel Wood Products, Inc. v. Tupas, 6 [249 SCRA 466.] three requisites must concur to stay the execution of judgment of an inferior court, to wit: 1) perfection of an appeal; 2) filing a supersedeas bond; and 3) making a periodic deposit of the rentals due or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property during the pendency of the appeal. the requirement for the filing of a supersedeas bond is mandatory, and so, if the bond is not filed, the execution of the judgment is a ministerial duty of the court.7 [Inland Trailways, Inc. v. Court of Appeal, 255 SCRA 178.] However, the Office of the Court Administrator declared that the judge did not act with malice or corrupt motive. The judge's failure to act was mainly due to a misapprehension of the law in ejectment cases.

We agree with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator. To continue gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but must be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption.8 [Alvarado v. Laquindanum, 245 SCRA 501.] Here, there is insufficient evidence to show that respondent judge was motivated by ill will. Nonetheless, while judges may not be disciplined for inefficiency on account of mistakes or errors of judgment, it is highly imperative that judges be conversant with basic legal principles.9 [Mu�ez v. Ari�o, 241 SCRA 478.] Respondent judge failed to keep himself abreast with jurisprudence.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to IMPOSE on respondent Judge Jerry B. Gonzales, MeTC, Branch 76, Marikina City, Metro Manila, a FINE of P5,000, payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE