ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1833-RTJ. November 8, 2004]

ARIMAO vs. PANGADAPUN

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 8 2004 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1833-RTJ (Datu Mikunug Arimao, et al. vs. Judge Yusoph K. Pangadapun, RTC, Branch 10, Marawi City .)

R E S O L U T I O N

Considering the Report dated September 1, 2004 of the Court Administrator, to wit:

1.������ COMPLAINT dated August 11, 2003 (with enclosures) of Datu Mikunug Arimao, et al., charging Judge Yusoph K. Pangadapun with Ignorance of the Law, Incompetence and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service relative to Special Civil Action No. 1008-03 entitled "Jamael Mustapha, et al. vs. Man am B. Barandia, both in her official and personal capacity as Branch Manager/Acting Head/Executive Officer, and representative of the Land Bank of the Philippines, MSU - Marawi City Branch" for Mandamus and Damages.

Complainants allege that the petitioners in the aforementioned special civil action were among the principal parties in SPA Case No. 02-473 entitled "In the Matter of the Petition to Declare a Failure and to Declare Null and Void the Fictitious Result of the Special Barangay and SK. Elections of August 13, 2002 in the Municipality of Masiu, Lanao del Norte" pending before the Honorable Commission on Elections. They claim that in their Answer in Intervention the complainants sought the Dismissal of Special Civil Action No. 1008-03 on the ground of Forum-Shopping but their plea was not given due course by the herein respondent Judge who eventually rendered a decision on July 25, 2003 in favor of the petitioners therein.

On July 28, 2003 the complainants filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision. They claimed that instead of resolving the aforesaid motion, the respondent Judge immediately ordered the execution of the decision in question on August 4, 2003 despite the fact that no hearing was conducted thereon by the latter as required by law.

2.������ COMMENT dated September 25, 2003 of respondent Judge Yusoph K. Pangadapun.

In his Comment, respondent Judge vehemently denied the allegation of the complainants that he disregarded the rule on forum-shopping and contended that the issue thereof was resolved in his Decision dated July 25, 2003 when he stated:

On the issue of forum-shopping raised by intervenors (now complainants), the Supreme Court, in Villanueva vs. Adre, 172 SCRA 876 (1989) explained that forum-shopping exists only by reason of an adverse decision in one forum, defendant ventures to another forum for a more favorable resolution of this case. Moreover, while the instant case before this court is Mandamus initiated by petitioners, the case before COMELEC docketed as SPA No. 02-473 (Brgy.) is initiated by the herein intervenors. Petitioners therefore, do not seek remedies in two different forums to seek a more favorable resolution from the other. Additionally, there is no identity of rights and causes of action asserted and reliefs prayed for,

On the other hand, respondent Judge branded as bereft of any factual and material basis the claim of the complainants that he immediately caused the execution of the decision without conducting any hearing thereon. He clarified that he denied the motion for reconsideration that was filed by the complainants for the simple reason that the same "is utterly pro forma there being no notice to all the parties of the date and time and place of the hearing in violation of Section 5, Rule 15, Rules of Court."

Lastly, respondent Judge maintained that if complainants disagree with the Decision of the Court dated July 25, 2003 and the order granting execution of judgment pending appeal dated August 1, 2003 their recourse is to elevate the same to the Court of Appeals either by way of certiorari or ordinary appeal, as the case may be, under the Rules of Court.

EVALUATION: The complaint must be dismissed.

The issue posed in this administrative complaint is judicial and may be best resolved through judicial adjudication. If complainants disagree with respondent's action, their remedy is to question the same in an appropriate judicial proceeding.

Moreover, a careful reading and study of the records indicate that the complainants failed to show any bad faith or malice on the part of the respondent Judge or that he rendered the decision and issued the Order in question with deliberate intent to do injustice. The presumption, therefore, of regularity in the performance of official function remains in favor of respondent Judge.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts on record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

Accordingly, the administrative complaint against Judge Yusoph K. Pangadapun is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE