ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. OCA IPI 00-972-MTJ.January 22, 2001]

GONZALES vs. JUDGE RAGASA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 22 2001.

A.M. No. OCA IPI 00-972-MTJ(Mercedita Gonzales vs. Judge Ma. Rosario Ragasa.)

This is a letter-complaint filed by Mercedita Gonzales against respondent Judge Ma. Rosario Ragasa, of the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Carmona and General Mauricio Alvarez, Cavite. The letter alleges that in Civil Case No. CC-95-02, entitled "Felino R. Medina v. Mercedita Gonzales," respondent judge issued an order for the demolition of complainant's house despite the fact that complainant had filed a petition for preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals. Complainant claims that, on April 4, 1997, she received a copy of the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Case No. IV-CC-25-75 ordering the cancellation of the title of Felino Medina, the plaintiff in the ejectment case (Civil Case No. CC-95-02).

Required to comment on the complaint, respondent judge states that she issued the writ of execution and, later, a writ of demolition in Civil Case No. CC-95-02, after complainant failed to file a timely appeal from the decision of the MCTC. With regard to the fact that complainant had a pending case for injunction in the Court of Appeals at that time, respondent judge clarifies that the case in the Court of Appeals was actually an appeal from the order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite, denying complainant's petition for injunction. Respondent contends that she granted the motion of the plaintiff in the ejectment case for the issuance of a writ of execution and, later, of a writ of demolition since neither the Regional Trial Court nor the Court of Appeals had issued a temporary restraining order enjoining her from proceeding with the case. As for the decision rendered by the DARAB allegedly annulling the title of the plaintiff in the ejectment case, respondent states that this is a matter which should be raised by complainant in the case pending before the Court of Appeals.

The Office of the Court Administrator, agreeing with the comment of respondent, recommends that the complaint against respondent be dismissed for lack of merit. The OCA calls attention to the fact that, complainant, by her own admission, failed to take a timely appeal from the decision in the ejectment case, thus rendering it final and executory.

The recommendation is well taken. Because of complainant's failure to file a timely appeal from the decision of the MCTC, the decision became final, and its execution became the ministerial duty of respondent (Kaw v. Anunciacion, Jr., 242 SCRA 1 (1995)). Complainant claims that her failure to appeal on time was due to her counsel's negligence. It suffices to say that unless the counsel is grossly negligent, the client is bound by acts or omissions of said counsel (Suarez v. Court of Appeals, 220 SCRA 274 (1993); People v. Hernandez, 260 SCRA 25 (1996)).

With regard to the decision of the DARAB allegedly canceling the title of the plaintiff in the ejectment case, it is to be noted that it was rendered after the MCTC had rendered its decision on December 2, 1996 for, according to complainant, she received a copy of the DARAB decision only on April 4, 1997. Hence, the MCTC could not have taken this into account in rendering its judgment.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Judge Ma. Rosario Ragasa, 5th MCTC, Carmona and General Mauricio Alvarez, Cavite, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE