ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[OCA-IPI No. 04-2082-RTJ.� July 20, 2005]

CA�ETE vs. LIBRE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 20 2005 .

OCA-IPI No. 04-2082-RTJ (Attys. Nemesio S. Ca�ete, Vermin Quimco, Mario Andres, Jr., and Bill L. Ybarley vs. Judge Maximino Magno-Libre [Presiding Judge], Atty. Joel M. Macaraya, Jr. [Branch Clerk of Court], Alberto O. Borres [Deputy Sheriff IV], All of the RTC, Br. 5, Iligan City, and Judge Marito P. Abragan, MTCC, Br. 2, Iligan City.)

For consideration is the administrative complaint dated 12 August 2004 filed by Attys. Nemesio Ca�ete, Vermin Quimco, Mario Andres, Jr., and Atty. Bill L. Ybarley (Complainants) against Presiding Judge Maximino Magno-Libre (Judge Libre), Branch Clerk of Court Joel M. Macaraya, Jr. (COC Macaraya) and Deputy Sheriff IV Alberto O. Borres (Sheriff Borres), all of the RTC, Branch 5 of Iligan City and against Judge Marito P. Abragan (Judge Abragan) of the MTCC, Branch 2 of Iligan City (hereafter collectively referred to as Respondents). The charges are gross ignorance of the law, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and manifest partiality relative to Civil Case No. 11475-AF entitled "Landtrade Realty Corp. (Landtrade) as rep. by Atty. Max C. Tabimina v. National Power Corp. (NPC), et al."

Civil Case No. 11475-AF was a case for ejectment filed by Landtrade against NPC and National Transmission Corp. (NTC). Said case was raffled to the sala of Judge Abragan. Complainants herein who are the counsels of NTC allege that during the hearing of Civil Case No. 11475-AF, NPC and NTC filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance and/or to conduct an ocular inspection. The purpose of said motion was to determine the exact identity of the property subject of the case or in the alternative, to suspend the proceedings pending final resolution of the action for quieting of title involving the same parcel of land before RTC, Branch 3 of Iligan City.

Judge Abragan failed and/or refused to resolve the motion and instead rendered a decision favorable to Landtrade. Complainants aver that this failure and/or refusal of Judge Abragan to resolve their motion is tantamount to gross ignorance of the law and manifest bias in favor of Landtrade. They further aver that Judge Abragan awarded back rentals of P500,000.00 per month to Landtrade despite lack of evidence.

When the case was appealed to the RTC, Judge Libre, in whose sala the case was raffled, granted Landtrade's Motion for Execution of the lower court's award. The grant of the motion, according to complainants, was despite their opposition and their Motion to Suspend the Proceedings.

A day after the motion for execution was granted, a Writ of Execution was issued by COC Macaraya in flagrant violation of Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. As a result, Notices of Garnishment were issued by Sheriff Borres upon all depository banks of NPC and NTC.

Complainants aver that the foregoing events show the conspiracy of respondents to execute a dubious judgment pending appeal and to deprive the government instrumentalities of its funds. Respondents should therefore be administratively held liable for their actions.

In their individual Comments to the complaint, respondents assert that their actions were in accordance with applicable law. Sheriff Borres and COC Macaraya claim that they merely performed ministerial functions pursuant to the grant of execution pending appeal. Judge Abragan and Judge Libre aver that their rulings were supported by the facts of the case and the submission of the parties. They likewise claim that complainants' motions were dilatory in character and were not allowed under summary procedure. The case at bar is concocted, fabricated and baseless and is merely designed to harass them.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the issues in this case are purely judicial in nature. Based on the facts, complainants were able to avail of judicial remedies seeking a reversal of the decisions and orders of Judge Abragan and Judge Libre. The appeal to the RTC and NTC's petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals questioning the writ of execution pending appeal and the notices of garnishment issued pursuant thereto are still pending resolution.

The OCA stated that the existence of judicial remedies precludes resort to administrative proceedings. A party-litigant abuses the process of a court if he resorts to an administrative proceeding for disciplining judges and court personnel prescribed by law, notwithstanding that the determination of the correctness of the orders of the judge and the actions of court personnel -upon which the liability of his recourse depends -has not yet been made.

The OCA recommended the dismissal of the instant case for being judicial in nature and for lack of merit. It likewise recommended that the complainants be directed to explain why they should not be disciplined as members of the bar and as officers of the court for filing the baseless and unfounded complaint against respondents.

Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Maximino Magno-Libre, Branch Clerk of Court Joel M. Macaraya, Jr. and Deputy Sheriff IV Alberto O. Borres, all of the RTC, Branch 5 of Iligan City and against Judge Marito P. Abragan of the MTCC, Branch 2 of Iligan City is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Complainants are DIRECTED to explain why they should not be disciplined as members of the bar and as officers of the court for filing the baseless and unfounded complaint against respondents.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE