ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.M. No. MTJ-99-1228. October 18, 1999]
FERNANDO TESORERO vs. JUDGE ALEX I. QUIROZ.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated OCT 18, 1999.
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1228 (Fernando Tesorero vs. Judge Alex I. Quiroz.)
For our consideration is a complaint dated October 8, 1996 filed by Fernando Tesorero against Judge Alex I. Quiroz of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 69, for gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct.
The administrative case arose from an election protest filed by Eduardo Gavino against complainant Fernand Tesorero before the MTC-Pasig City, Branch 69, presided by respondent Judge Quiroz. Gavino and Tesorero were contenders for the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Sta. Lucia, Pasig City in the May 9, 1994 election. On March 2, 1995, respondent Judge rendered judgment declaring Eduardo Gavino as the duly elected Punong Barangay. Complainant interposed an appeal before the COMELEC.
On March 8, 1995, Gavino filed an urgent motion for execution pending appeal.1 [Annex B of the Complaint, Rollo at p. 7.] Respondent judge issued an order dated March 9, 1995, stating that the court cannot act on the motion since the case had already been forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the MTC-Pasig City for transmittal to the COMELEC.2 [Annex C. Rollo at p. 11.] On August 18, 1995, Gavino filed a motion to resolve motion for execution pending appeal on the ground that the mere filing of the notice of appeal did not divest the court of its jurisdiction over the case, citing Edding v. COMELEC, 246 SCRA 502.3 [Annex D, rollo at p. 12] In the order of August 23, 1995, respondent Judge Quiroz ordered the parties to file their comment/objection on or before August 30, 1995 at 10:00 o'clock, before the scheduled date of hearing.4 [Annex F, rollo at p. 17.] On said date, respondent judge ordered the parties to file additional pleadings and thereafter to consider the case submitted for resolution. The parties complied therewith.5 [Annex G, rollo at p. 18.] On November 27, 1995, Gavino filed an urgent ex parte motion for early resolution of his motion to resolve motion for execution of the decision pending appeal.6 [Annex H, rollo at p. 19.] Respondent Judge, on December 4, 1995 granted the motion.7 [Annex I, rollo at p. 21.] The corresponding writ was issued on December 58 [Annex J, rollo at p. 24.] and implementing on December 7, 1995.
On December 12, 1995, complainant filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order seeking to annul and set aside the aforesaid order of December 4, 1995. The case was docketed as SPR No. 37-95. On February 1, 1996, a TRO was issued restraining the implementation of the writ of execution pending appeal.9 [Annex L, pp. 141-142.] A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on February 6, 1995.
Claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC, Gavino filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for TRO before this Court, docketed as G. R. No. 123865. On September 3, 1996, the Court En Banc dismissed the petition.
Thus, complainant Tesorero filed this administrative complaint charging respondent judge of gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct for granting motion for execution pending appeal without complying with the requirements set forth under Rule 39, sec. 2 of the Rules of Court.
In the resolution of July 16, 1997, this Court requires respondent judge to comment on the complaint. In answer thereto, he insisted that complainant was given the opportunity to object to or comment on the motion; that a hearing was conducted as shown in the order of August 30, 1995; that since the writ was issued nine months after the filing of the motion it indicated that he exercised utmost prudence in resolving the case, and that with respect to the matter of Gavino's failure to post a bond, he contended that complainant did not ask for reparation of damages as provided in section 5 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
In reply, complainant claimed that what was set for hearing was the motion to resolve motion for execution pending appeal and that the pleadings submitted by the parties referred to the hearing of the motion to resolve and not the motion for execution pending appeal and that since no good reason was stated in the assailed order, Rule 39 was violated.
In his supplemental comment, respondent judge claimed that what was resolved in the order was the motion for execution pending appeal, and that the COMELEC issued a TRO not because of the procedural flaw but by the perceived arrogance of Gavino's in not complying with the order of the COMELEC.
In the resolution of March 17, 1999, the Court required the parties to manifest whether they are submitting the case on the bases of the pleadings filed. Both parties manifested affirmatively.
This case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. The OCA recommended the following:
"As a judge, respondent is expected to follow strictly the procedure laid down in the Rules regarding the matter in question. His failure to comply with such procedure makes him administratively liable.
Premises considered. It is respectfully submitted for the
consideration of this Honorable Court that respondent Judge Alex I Quiroz,
MeTC, Branch 69, Pasig City be FINED TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) for
ignorance of the law with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts be dealt with more severely."
We confirm the finding that respondent judge failed to comply with the mandate of Rule 39, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court, which is applicable to election cases despite the failure to reproduce Section 218 of the Revised Election Code of 1971 in the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 88110 [Ramos vs. Comelec, G. R. No. 130831, February 10, 1998.]).
Said Rule provides:
"Execution pending appeal - on motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party, the court may, in its discretion, order execution to issue even before the expiration of the time to appeal, upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. If a record on appeal is filed thereafter, the motion and the special order shall be included therein."
Execution pending appeal is an exception to the general rule and hence, must be strictly construed.11 [City of Manila v. CA, 259 SCRA 362.] A court is not authorized to order the execution of its judgment before the expiration of the time to appeal unless there are good reasons therefor, which must be stated in a special order. "Good reason" means those reason which must be of superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or damage should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment.12 [Provident International Resources Corp. v. CA, 259 SCRA 510.]
It is not disputed that the assailed order of December 4, 1995 does not state the good reasons which would justify the immediate execution of the decision despite an appeal seasonably perfected.
However, we are convinced that failure to faithfully comply with the Rule 39, Sec. 2, although constituting reversible error, would not render the respondent judge liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct as charged. To constitute 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.13 [Alvarado v. Laquindanum, 245 SCRA 501.] The error must be gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust judgment.14 [Bengzon v. Adaong, 250 SCRA 344.] Not every error committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction is punishable as gross ignorance.
However, it is believed that while respondent judge Quiroz should be sanctioned for his mistake in issuing an order of execution pending appeal without stating the good reasons justifying its issuance, the recommended penalty of P2,000.00 fine is too harsh.
Accordingly, respondent Judge Alex I Quiroz is hereby admonished with a stern warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
