ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.M. No. RTJ-97-1386. October 18, 1999]
FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO O. VILLARTA.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated OCT 18, 1999.
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1386 (Francisco Fernandez vs. Judge Francisco O. Villarta.)
Francisco Fernandez filed complaints dated April 15, 1996 and April 22, 1996 charging respondent Judge Francisco O. Villarta, Jr.1 [Compulsory retired as of September 17, 1997.] then Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bangued, Abra, Branch 1 with abuse of authority, oppression and gross ignorance of the law.
Complainant alleges that he is the owner of a parcel of land described as Lot 2858 and covered by TCT No. T-1066 located at Cauyunan, Manabo, Abra. Title to the entire parcel was consolidated in his name pursuant to a judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 1411 for quieting of title.
Complainant alleges that less than a month after the subject property was registered in his name, Pedro Marcial Tumalip and Wilson Bagani, who claim to be successors-in-interest of a certain Laoan Ayaman, filed with RTC-Branch I presided by herein respondent Judge a case docketed as Sp. Proc No. 1101 entitled "In the matter of the Intestate Estate of Laoan Ayaman" wherein the subject property was included in the inventory of properties allegedly owned by the estate of Ayaman. Tumalip and Bagani were appointed administrators of the estate of Ayaman and were placed in possession thereof by the Court and allowed to harvest the mango fruits on the land. Complainant Fernandez filed on June 28, 1994 a motion to "delete the subject property from the inventory of the estate by the administrators because said property never belonged to the late Laoan Ayaman". This was reiterated in another motion filed by Fernandez on September 30, 1995. Respondent allegedly never acted on these motions.
On January 30, 1996, the respondent Judge ordered the municipal treasurer to deliver to the administrators "whatever amount (was) deposited with him" from the sale of the mango fruits.2 [p. 51, Rollo.] Complainant Fernandez filed a motion to recall the order of January 30, 1996 arguing that there is no decision of any court of competent jurisdiction declaring the late Laoan Ayaman or those acting for him as the true owner of the subject land and the administrators have not filed any action to litigate the ownership of the said land.
In an Order of March 1, 1996, respondent judge directed the administrators to cease and desist from entering the subject land. On motion for reconsideration by the administrators, the respondent judge ordered the status quo to be maintained pending the final outcome of the case. Complainant Fernandez alleges that the motion for reconsideration was never calendared or scheduled for hearing.
Complainant avers that respondent Judge knowingly rendered the aforesaid unjust interlocutory Orders dated January 30, 1996 and March 1, 1996, because even as early as June 1994, respondent was already aware that complainant Fernandez is the registered owner of the subject property. The orders were allegedly issued with grave abuse of authority, oppression and gross ignorance of the law.
In his comment3 [pp. 75-78, Rollo.] respondent Judge contends that considering the perishable nature of the mango fruits and the absence of any opposition or claim over the property, the court had to act with dispatch; that the complainant never submitted any proof of his ownership over the land included in the inventory and the court cannot take judicial notice of a fact over which it does not have actual knowledge and there were tax declarations pointing to the decedent as the owner of the property; that the court sitting as intestate tribunal is of limited jurisdiction and as such cannot order the deletion of a property included in the inventory for this would have the effect of making a final determination of possession and ownership over the property in favor of the complainant; that all the court did was to promote the well-being of the estate and not to favor anyone; and that there was nothing unjust, malicious, capricious, and whimsical in the issuance of the orders allowing the harvest of the mango fruits and mandating the maintenance of status quo. Respondent judge prays for the dismissal of the complaint for being baseless and for utter lack of merit.
By Resolution dated April 30, 1997, this case was referred to the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation.4 [p. 91, Rollo.] The Court Administrator recommended that respondent judge be "severely reprimanded for not acting x x x with dispatch" on the complainant's motion of June 24, 1994 to delete subject property from the inventory of the estate of Laoan Ayaman, which motion was acted upon only on March 1, 1996, and that respondent be "reminded that he should be more circumspect in the performance of his official duties with a warning that the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely."5 [p. 9, thereof, p. 101, Rollo.]
Respondent Judge reached compulsory retirement on September 17, 1997.6 [p. 9, Memorandum from the Office of the Court of Administration dated July 17, 1997, p. 101, Rollo.] In his motion on May 21, 1999, he pleads for the resolution of his case as he is suffering from emphyzema and physical disability and needs his retirement benefits for his hospitalization and maintenance of his family.
We find the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator well-taken.
Firstly, on the allegation that respondent should have taken judicial notice of the fact that in the Motion dated June 27, 1994, complainant claimed to be the owner of the subject property (which was included in the inventory of the estate of the late Ayaman) by virtue of a final judgment in Civil Case No. 1411, we agree with respondent judge that it was the duty of complainant to substantiate the allegations in the motion or any other pleading. Respondent judge pointed out that there was no proof submitted, documentary or otherwise, to show ownership of the subject land.7 [p. 2, respondent's Comment and Compliance, p. 76, Rollo.]
In his Reply to respondent's Comment, complainant alleged that he had filed the required pleading giving notice to respondent that one of the lands included in the inventory of properties of the estate of Ayaman is registered in complainant's name. But as aptly found by the Office of the Court of Administrator:
"It would be noted that complainant merely stated that 'they were the adjudged owners of the said property by final, executory and executed judgment by Branch II of the Honorable Court Civil Case No. 1411 entitle Arcedo, et al. vs. Balangcad, et al.,' without mentioning that they had attached a copy of a certified true copy of the declarations or writ of execution which adjudged to them the subject lot.
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides for evidences which need not be proved or can be taken by the court on judicial notice x x x.
Thus, as pointed out by respondent that aside from complainant's mere allegation in the motion on his claim, there were no proof, documentary or otherwise to show ownership over the subject land. Hence, he cannot take judicial notice of the said motion.
It is not respondent'(s) duty to investigate the truthfulness of the said Motion or the contents thereof or he merely acts on it as it was presented. It is thus the duty of complainant('s) counsel to furnish the court with the necessary evidence for respondent to arrive at a judicious order otherwise the court will not exercise its discretion to take judicial notice thereof, as it did in this case." 8 [p. 8, Memorandum.]
This is in consonance with Section 3, Rule 159 [The same section was amended by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that"
SEC. 3. Contents.- A motion shall state the relief sought to be obtained and the grounds upon which it is based, and if required by these Rules or necessary to prove facts alleged therein, shall be accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers.] of the Rules of Court that "(A) motion shall state the order sought to be obtained and the grounds upon which it is based, and if necessary shall be accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers."
However, the respondent judge is not entirely absolved; he is administratively liable for inefficiency. The motion praying for the deletion of the subject property from the inventory of the estate of Ayaman was filed on June 28, 1994. This was reiterated on October 13, 199510 [pp. 47-49, Rollo.] and the motion was acted upon by respondent only on March 1, 1996.11 [Order of March 1, 1996, p. 55, Rollo.] It is clear that respondent judge failed to act with dispatch in resolving the motion. The conduct of respondent judge in delaying the disposition of the aforesaid motion, without offering any excuse, cannot be countenanced and should not be condoned.12 [Beduya vs. Alpuerta, 96 SCRA 673.] Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is explicit in that "(A) judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required period."
In Guinto vs. Lucero,13 [261 SCRA 1 (En Banc).] we ruled:
It has repeatedly been held that delay in resolving motions and incidents before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. The judge is likewise guilty of a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a magistrate shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required period."
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent Judge Francisco Villarta is hereby admonished for inefficiency.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
