ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1799-MTJ. July 26, 2006]

JOSE AND MAGDALENA CABILIN v. JUDGE DAVID R. PINGGOY, MCTC, NABUNTURAN, COMPOSTELA VALLEY PROVINCE

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 26, 2006

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1799-MTJ (Jose and Magdalena Cabilin v. Judge David R. Pinggoy, MCTC, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Province)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

Complainants allege that a complaint for ejectment, damages and attorney's fees was filed by Fermin and Julieta Gamus against them before the MCTC, Nabunturan, docketed as Civil Case No. 347 (271). Judge Pinggoy decided the case on 10 October 2000, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the prevailing jurisprudence and established facts, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants ordering the latter:

1.��� to vacate Lot No. 3971 and remove or dismantle defendants['s] house thereon;

2���� to pay plaintiffs the sum of Php 15,000.00 as reasonable Attorney's Fees and Php 5,000.00 by way of moral damages; and

3.��� to pay the cost of Php 32.00.

The defendants' counterclaim is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

The above-mentioned decision was appealed to RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Province which affirmed the assailed decision in toto. Discontented, complainants filed petitions for review and certiorari with the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, respectively, but both petitions were dismissed.

Judge Pinggoy's issuance of the writ of execution (Annex "B") on 25 March 2004 is in blatant violation of Section 8, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court for the reason that all the particulars were allegedly left in blank. It can never be executed because there is nothing in the writ except for blank spaces. The assailed writ did not state that complainants should be ejected from the subject land. "A writ of execution should strictly conform to the essential particulars of the promulgated judgment particularly its dispositive portion." There was no basis for the subsequent issuance of the writ of demolition.

Complainants allege that Judge Pinggoy should require the plaintiffs to pay them the value of their improvements on the subject land, including the necessary expenses incurred for the preservation of the subject land, pursuant to Articles 448, 452 and 527 of the Civil Code before the writ of demolition can be lawfully issued.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its 1st Indorsement dated 1 December 2005 directed Judge Pinggoy to comment on the complaint and on why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for violation of his professional responsibility as a lawyer.

In his 24 January 2006 Comment, Judge Pinggoy avers that the form used is not actually blank. There is a statement "see attached Decision." The sheriff was ordered by the court to enforce and execute the decision. The sheriff is guided by the dispositive portion of said decision which ordered the complainants to vacate the subject land. The dispositive portion of the decision was clearly stated in the alias writ of execution in an order dated 2 December 2005 which likewise granted the special order of demolition.

The issue on the legality of the writ of execution was already raised by the complainants in their petition for certiorari filed before RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan which directed Judge Pinggoy to issue a special order of demolition and the provincial sheriff to proceed with the enforcement of 25 March 2004 order. The 30 August 2005 order of RTC, Br. 3 directed the sheriff to proceed with the demolition of the complainants' property.

The issue of payment of indemnity was already passed upon by the Court of Appeals in its 26 November 2002 decision, declaring plaintiffs as owners of the litigated property. The complainants lost their case in MCTC, RTC, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The filing of this administrative complaint is unjust and an act of harassment. Judge Pinggoy prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

EVALUATION: The charge of gross ignorance of the law must fail, [as] even complainants' Annex "B" discloses that Judge Pinggoy did not strictly adhere to Section 8, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which specifically required that the writ of execution shall state the dispositive part of the decision. Judge Pin[g]goy, however, has substantially complied with the mentioned rule of procedure considering that there is a statement written on the assailed writ "see attached decision." Contrary to the complainants' contention, the assailed writ can be implemented by the sheriff who must refer to the decision for its enforcement. In fact, on 29 March 2004, the sheriff served the copies of the 10 October 2000 decision and the 25 March 2004 writ of execution to the complainants. They were ordered to vacate the litigated property and remove their house thereon. As a consequence, complainants requested for an additional period of fifteen (15) days within which to remove their house (Sheriff's Return of Service dated 16 November 2004 - Respondent's Annex). For the adamant refusal of the complainants to remove their house, plaintiffs were compelled to move for the issuance of the writ of demolition which the MCTC granted after due hearing. The complainants questioned the validity of the writ of demolition via petition for certiorari before the RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan which denied the petition and directed Judge Pinggoy to issue a special order of demolition and the sheriff to proceed with the enforcement of the assailed order dated 25 March 2004 (5 August 2005 order of RTC, Br. 3 - Respondent's Annex). The RTC, Br. 3 in its 30 August 2005 order denied the complainants' motion for reconsideration (id.). Judge Pinggoy issued an alias writ of execution stating the dispositive portion of the 10 October 2000 decision and a special order of demolition after the case was decided by this Court with finality and complainants' petition for certiorari was denied by RTC, Br. 3. Judge Pinggoy is not liable for gross ignorance of the law because his decision and orders were sustained by the appellate courts.

It must be stressed that to constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that the assailed order or ruling is contrary to existing law or jurisprudence but, most importantly, the judge must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption (Gabriel dela Paz vs. Judge Santos Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1857, 23 November 2004). In the Instant complaint, there is no evidence to prove that Judge Pinggoy was so motivated in issuing the 25 March 2004 writ of execution. Complainants' documentary evidence reveals nothing of that sort.

Notably, the general aim to procedural law is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing in mind that procedural rules are created not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. The strict application of the rules of procedure especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided (Maunlad Savings and Loan Association vs. Court of Appeals, 346 SCRA 35; Abrajano vs. Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 68).

In view of the foregoing, this Office respectfully recommends the dismissal of the instant complaint for lack of merit.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for consideration of the Honorable Court the recommendation that the instant complaint against respondent Judge David R. Pinggoy 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.

Unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill will, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice, respondent judge may not be held administratively liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or incompetence of official acts or acts in the exercise of judicial functions and duties particularly in the adjudication of cases. [1] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge David R. Pinggoy is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Cordero v. Enriquez, A.M. No. CA-04-36, February 18, 2004, 423 SCRA 181, 187.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com