ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2326-RTJ. April 26, 2006]
RE: DELFINO & HELENDA RANIEL vs. JUDGE VICTOR A. TOMANENG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BUTUAN CITY
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated APR. 26, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2326-RTJ (Re: Delfino & Helenda Raniel vs. Judge Victor A. Tomaneng, Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Butuan City)
Considering the report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
1. COMPLAINT dated 01 Augusl 2005 of Sps. Delfino and Helenda Raniel charging respondent Judge with serious Misconduct, Inefficiency, Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Power relative to SEC case No. 02-2001, entitled "Delfino Raniel, et al. vs. Teodoro E. Vargas, [sic] et al."
Complainants are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid case. They allege that on 26 March 1997, they filed a complaint before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Teodoro B. Vesagas and Wilfredo D. Asis for illegally stripping them of membership at the Luz Village Tennis Club.
During the trial, complainants' evidence was admitted in court after Teodoro B. Vesagas, et al. ignored the summons issued to them. However, before a decision could be rendered by the SEC, Rep. Act No. 8799, which transferred jurisdiction to resolve intra-corporate disputes to the Regional Trial Courts, was implemented and the case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court for decision to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Butuan City.
Prior thereto, Teodoro B. Vesagas, et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss on 09 May 1997 feigning that the club had "already rid itself" of its being "a corporate body" and "had already dissolved its corporate existence". They also submitted an opposition to the issuance of TRO on 21 April 1997 emphasizing that the submission of the pleading is only for the purpose of opposing the TRO and should in no way be considered as a submission to the jurisdiction of the commission.
Meanwhile, the attempt to subpoena Club Secretary Purita Escober to bring certain documents of the club was blocked. A Petition for Review on Certiorari was brought before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 142924) who [sic] declared that petitioners' opposition is out of step as they "are not the proper parties to assail" and "their protestation has no leg to stand on".
Complainants aver that all the issues raised by Teodoro B. Vesagas, et al. were overturned in: (a) Petition for Review on Certiorari with the SEC Commission en banc (SEC-EB No. 584; (b) Petition under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP No. 51189); and (c) Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 142924).
Thereafter, complainants filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution of the Supreme Court Decision (G.R. No. 142924) to block any attempt to recycle old issues before the RTC, Branch 33. Showing bias in favor of the other parties, respondent Judge, who is a co-member, "kumpadre" to Vesagas and Asis and past president and legal adviser of the club, did not perform his ministerial duty of issuing the writ of execution. Complainants also point out that the decision in G.R. No. 142924 was for him to resolve the case based on the SEC records forwarded to this court.
Vesagas, et al. filed a Comment dated 25 June 2005 alleging that they "filed their Answer with Counterclaims and should x x x have their day in court". They also explained that they did not file one before the SEC as they consistently questioned its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case since its inception. Significantly, the case is still the same except that it was referred to the court for resolution. Complainants assert that the right to answer was already waived.
In defiance of the Supreme Court decision, respondent Judge scheduled the case for pre-trial. Complainants, through their counsel, asserted that the case referred to the court was beyond the pre-trial stage, hence it could not conduct a pre-trial and retrial of the case. On the other hand, respondent Judge refused to decide the case insisting that the Supreme Court conferred on him all powers of jurisdiction and discretion over the case x x x including the option to inhibit.
On 22 July 2002, respondent Judge issued an Order declaring that "there is nothing yet to be executed" and that "the Supreme Court remanded to this branch for trial on the merit" x x x. He ruled that upon failure to attend the pre-trial set for 29 September 2005, "the court will be constrained to cite either party as non-suited".
Meanwhile, complainants insist that the wordings in the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 142924 which "referred" the case to RTC, Branch 33, Butuan City meant "to send or direct for treatment, aid, information or decision" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Philippines Copyright 1975 by G & C, Merriam Co.). Thus, the referred jurisdiction is limited and respondent Judge had no room to modify the Supreme Court judgment which directed the "transfer of the records" of the SEC case to RTC, Branch 33.
In a letter dated 02 February 2002, respondent Judge wrote the Chief Justice through the Court Administrator seeking to withdraw from the case admitting that he is a member and former president and legal adviser of the Luz Village Tennis Club and Dr. Teodoro A. Vesagas is his "kumpadre" having been a principal sponsor in the wedding of Dr. Vesagas' daughter. The alleged inhibition was not addressed to the First Division which decided the case. Respondent Judge ultimately assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Complainants accuse respondent Judge of Serious Abuse of Authority when he scheduled the case for pre-trial even though the trial had already been concluded before the SEC and all that was left for him to do was to render a decision on the case. They also claim that respondent Judge committed Serious Misconduct for his disregard of the law and usurpation of the judicial power of the First Division of the Supreme Court. Complainants further charge respondent Judge of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedures for his refusal to issue a writ of execution to implement the decision of the First Division of the Supreme Court.
2. MOTION TO DECLARE RESPONDENT JUDGE IN DEFAULT dated November 2005. For his alleged failure to file his answer in the instant administrative case within ten (10) days, complainants pray that respondent Judge be declared in default. Complainants likewise reiterate their charges against respondent Judge emphasizing that the latter has no authority to conduct a pre-trial and trial in SEC Case No. 02-2001 because his duty was limited to the preparation of the decision therein as trial has already been concluded before the SEC.
3. COMMENT dated 13 December 2005 of respondent Judge explaining that the reason he was unable to immediately submit his comment was that he is presently undergoing treatment for bone marrow cancer.
Respondent Judge explains that while the subject case was still with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as SEC Case No. 03-97-5598, complainants already moved that the case be resolved. However, the SEC did not come up with a decision despite the lapse of two (2) years. Before the promulgation of the decision of the First Division of the Supreme Court on 05 December 2005, the SEC already remanded the records of the case to the RTC, Branch 33 as the designated SEC court. The case became SEC Case No. 02-2001.
Respondent Judge immediately manifested his intention to inhibit from the case by reason of delicadeza and it was initially granted [by] the Office of the Court Administrator through the Office of Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock. Later, a Resolution dated 01 October 2003 was issued by the Supreme Court denying his request for inhibition.
After respondent Judge received the Resolution directing him to take cognizance of the case, he immediately scheduled the case for preliminary conference on 12 April 2005. On said date, he directed the parties to submit their pre-trial briefs and at the instance of the counsels for the parties, including Atty. Nelbert T. Porculan, counsel for herein complainants, re-set the pre-trial on 06 June 2005.
However, on 17 May 2005, a Motion for Cancellation of Pre-trial and Issuance of Writ of Execution was filed by Atty: Porculan for herein complainants. Defendants, in turn, filed their Comment (and Opposition) to the motion. Respondent Judge denied the motion because "there is nothing yet to be executed in this case". He points out that the case was referred by the Supreme Court to the court for trial on the merits. He believes that the case has to go through the entire procedure laid down in A.M. No. 01-2-04 SC before any decision can properly be rendered thereon.
Thereafter, complainants moved for the inhibition of respondent Judge.
For his defense, respondent Judge adopts with approval the Comment (And Opposition) submitted by defendants, which stated that the prayer for the issuance of a writ of execution has no substantial and procedural basis based on the following:
A) The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 142924 reads:
"IN VIEW WHEREOF, finding no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Decision, the petition is DENIED. In conformity with R.A. 8799, SEC Case No. 03-97-5598, entitled "Delfino Raniel and Helenda Raniel vs. Teodoro B. Vesagas and Wilfred Asis" is referred to the Regional Trial Court of the Ninth (should have been tenth) Judicial Region, Branch 33 located in the Agusan del Norte (Butuan City), one of the designated special commercial courts pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC.
SO ORDERED."
Since SEC Case No. 03-97-5598 was already remanded to the RTC, Branch 33 and had been docketed as SEC Case No. 02-2001, the Order of the Court is already deemed fait accompli.
B) The dispositive portions of the decision on the petitions before the Court of Appeals decreed its dismissal, hence there was no need for a writ of execution. Said decisions merely upheld the Order of the SEC dated 14 July 1998 in SEC-EB 584.
C) The SEC had not rendered a decision on the merits of SEC Case No. 03-97-5598, hence there is nothing to implement. Moreover, there is nothing in the decision of the Court of Appeals nor of the Supreme Court which directs the RTC, Br. 33 to enforce anything by a writ of execution. In addition, the SEC deferred the resolution on the merits of the case because of the issue on its jurisdiction over the subject matter. Hence, when the records of the [case] was remanded to the lower court from the SEC, said court assumed all powers of jurisdiction and discretion over the case pursuant to SC Adm. Memo No. 01-2-04.
Defendants explained that they did not file a motion to reconsider the Decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 142924 because they have always maintained that the SEC had no jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC.
After the case was remanded to the lower court, defendants filed their Answer with Counterclaim dated 04 October 2002. With such pleading already filed, it was proper that pre-trial and, if necessary, trial should follow, afterwhich, judgment could be rendered by the court. When the judgment became final, the issuance of a writ of execution would be the next logical step.
Respondent judge maintains that without any decision either of the SEC or RTC, Branch 33 on SEC CASE No. 02-2001, there is nothing to execute. Under Sec. 4, Rule 1, Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra Corporate Controversies Under RA 8799, an order issued by the court shall become immediately executory. Accordingly, the denial of the motion for execution on 22 July 2005 became final and executory since no appeal could be taken from such an interlocutory order.
Respondent judge would have proceeded with the scheduled pre-trial but he was taken ill since 05 September 2005 for "multiple mycloma ".
Respondent judge maintains that "to refer" u case to him means "to submit for reconsideration" (Burton's Legal Thesaurus, Third Edition, p. 894). It was exactly what he tried to do. Afterall, there was nothing in the decision of the Supreme Court that directed him to AT ONCE render a decision based merely on the records from the SEC. He insists that his responsibility was to render a judgment after the procedure laid down in A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC had been met, i.e. after the parties shall have adduced their evidence and the case submitted for decision. It never dawned to him that the "referral" of the case to his court was in exclusion of the answer and evidence of defendants who had pursued, albeit unsuccessfully, the issue of jurisdiction before the appellate courts.
Finally, respondent Judge claims that the instant complaint is nothing but har[r]assment since complainants, who are his close acquaintance, knew that he is about to retire.
4. REPLY dated 02 January 2006 of complainants who insist that respondent judge's comment was filed out of time as there was no proof of his claim that he was granted by the Court Administrator an extension of time to file it. Complainants point out that in the unverified medical certificate he submitted, Dr. Leilani Yee-Cabahug certified that respondent Judge was under her care since September 2005 where he was advised to take a leave from work whereas the complaint was filed on 05 August 2005, apparently before respondent judge was taken ill. It only meant that respondent Judge ignored the 1st Indorsement dated 17 August 2005.
Complainants likewise suspect collusion between respondent judge on one hand and the defendants in SEC Case No. 02-2001 on the other hand. They point out that the style of respondent Judge's comment is uncannily similar to defendants' Answer particularly on the use of the phrase "pray tell" which appeared several times on both pleadings.
Complainants deny that the filing of this administrative complaint was intended to harass herein respondent Judge.
EVALUATION: Respondent Judge is charged with Serious Misconduct, Inefficiency, Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Power for his denial of the motion for the issuance of writ of execution filed by defendant [sic] and his insistence that SEC Case No. 02-2001 be scheduled for pre-trial and trial and his alleged refusal to inhibit from hearing the aforesaid case.
A cursory reading of the Decision promulgated on 05 December 2001 by the First Division of the Supreme Court reveals that the issue discussed thereon pertains primarily on the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over SEC Case No. 03-97-5598 (SEC Case No. 02-2001). Said decision recognized the jurisdiction of the SEC over the controversy. Nonetheless, with the enactment of R.A. 8799, otherwise knows [sic] as the Securities Regulation Code, the case was referred to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which now has the authority to try and decide cases formerly cognizable by the SEC.
Contrary to complainants' claim, the decision does not contain a pronouncement that the duty of RTC, Br. 33 is only limited to deciding the case. Nonetheless, errors, if any, that may have been committed by respondent Judge in the exercise of his judicial function are not administratively actionable in the absence of bad faith or other evil motive.
In the case at bar, complainants were unable to prove bad faith on the pail of respondent Judge. On the contrary, their insinuation that he was not really sincere in his attempt to inhibit himself from the case was misleading since it appears that the Court denied his request for inhibition in a Resolution dated 01 October 2003 in A.M. No. 03-9-509-RTC.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court our recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Victor A. Tomaneng is DISMISSED. CHICO-NAZARIO , J., on official leave.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
By:
EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
First Division
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
