ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2218-RTJ. July 10, 2006]

PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY MARY LOU VASQUEZ v. JUDGE CESAR A. MANGROBANG, RTC, BRANCH 22, IMUS, CAVITE

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 10, 2006

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2218-RTJ (Pilar Development Corporation Represented by Mary Lou Vasquez v. Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang, RTC, Branch 22, Imus, em>Cavite )

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

In a VERIFIED COMPLAINT (with enclosures) dated March 7, 2005, Pilar Development Corporation through its Executive Vice President Mary Lou Vasquez charges Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang with Grave Abuse of Authority and/or Discretion and Violation of Pars. 2 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics relative to Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 197-05 entitled "IN RE: Petition for the Relocation Survey of Lot 5766 New RS-04-004133 Imus Friar Land Estate, Salawag, Dasmari�as, Cavite."

Complainant owns Lot No. 7524 covered by TCT No. 26877 with an area of 16.2945 hectares. Lot No. 7524 is a part of the bigger Lot No. 5766 of the Imus Friar Land Estate. Lot No. 5766 had a total area of 28.4201 hectares and was subdivided into two lots, i.e. Lot No. 7524 and Lot No. 5766 New.

Complainant accuses respondent of being remiss in his duties and for violating paragraphs 2 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, firstly, by acting on the petition of Nordland Properties and Development Corporation (LRC No. 197-05) in total disregard of the law and of standing legal principles. Complainant contends that the RTC has no jurisdiction to grant resurvey as an original action since such authority is lodged exclusively with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. It claims that by treating the petition as an action in rem , respondent showed manifest serious bad faith and malice. It further adds that by not dismissing the petition for apparent lack of jurisdiction, respondent has violated his sworn duties and maliciously allowed his Court to be used as an instrument to mock our justice system. Moreover, respondent ignored the evident fact that the Survey Authority from the DENR was secured through fraud since Nordland's application for resurvey was clearly perjured and false.

Secondly, respondent acquiesced, aided and abetted Nordland in its malicious maneuverings by not summoning complainant to afford it due process. Complainant strongly suspects that the posting of notices for the hearing of the petition was designed to ensure that complainant would not discover its existence. Moreover, respondent's Order of February 21, 2005 granting Nordland's petition clearly was not directed against complainant who, incidentally, is the only entity claiming rights over the subject property. In addition, Nordland's right over the property is subject of a pending case, which is being heard by respondent. Thus, respondent should have been forewarned to take steps to ascertain the identities of other interested parties so they maybe notified of the petition.

Lastly, complainant alleges that respondent granted the execution of his February 21, 2005 Order disregarding established rules of procedure. Respondent issued his Order of February 23, 2005 granting execution only an hour after the filing of Nordland's Motion, which was set for hearing at 3 p.m. of the same day it was filed. Moreover, the order granting execution was issued two days after the February 21, 2005 order, which has not yet become final and executory. Thus, the order granting execution was palpably hastily issued in favor of Nordland.

In his COMMENT (with enclosures) dated May 12, 2005, respondent vehemently denies the allegations of complainant. First, respondent avers that he did not usurp the jurisdiction of the DENR as the sole agency responsible for surveying of lands and his February 21 and 23, 2005 orders only implemented the Survey Authority No. 05845, dated January 18, 2005, issued by the DENR. Second, respondent contends that he did not treat Nordland's petition as an action in rem but a summary procedure to implement the DENR's Survey Authority. Moreover, the petition was not an action for injunction against complainant but one for leave to conduct the DENR authorized survey of Lot No. 5766-New, which is a different property from complainant's Lot No. 7524.

Third, respondent asserts that there was nothing that would put him on notice that the Survey Authority and other documents presented by Nordland in its petition were not valid and legitimate. Thus, the Survey Authority has not become fraudulent on the say so of complainant without any contrary evidence presented. Moreover, complainant's contention that LMI Elizalde Y. Berania's statements in the Request for Survey Authority are clearly perjured and false is not supported by evidence other than complainant's allegation. Besides, in the absence of proof to the contrary, respondent acted on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed in the issuance of the Survey Authority.

Fourth, it is completely unfair and unwarranted to allege that respondent acquiesced, aided and abetted Nordland in depriving complainant of its right to due process in failing to send it notices. The publication and sending of notices to adjacent owners are not required for the petition since it does not involve registration proceedings or reconstitution of title. Moreover, respondent relied on the DENR to post and send appropriate notices to affected parties before it issued the Survey Authority. Further, respondent did take notice of Civil Case No. 0317-04 by stating in his orders that the grant of the petition was without prejudice to the rights of any third party and neither will it vest title to the property on the grantee of such survey authority.

Lastly, respondent assails the instant administrative complaint as an improper action by complainant to question his orders relative to the petition, which complainant has not been made a party, and without any allegation or proof of the damage it suffered. Moreover, the instant proceeding cannot be used by complainant to assail the issuance of the Survey Authority since such should be properly addressed to the DENR. In fine, even granting that respondent committed error in his orders, such may not be a ground to subject him to disciplinary action as there is no proof that the error was attributable to a conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice.

EVALUATION: The complaint is bereft of merit. A circumspect review of the allegations in the complaint and respondent's comment thereto, indicates that the said complaint does not deserve consideration.

Firstly, it is clear that the subject property of Nordland's petition is different from the property owned by complainant. Complainant owns Lot No. 7524, the larger portion of the mother Lot No. 5766, while Nordland is claiming right over the smaller portion, Lot No. 5766-New. Thus, it is clear that complainant and Nordland have no issue as to rights or ownership over the same land. Besides, both properties are supposed to have their own technical description delineating their metes and bounds. Moreover, at the outset, there is no showing that Lot No. 7524 and Lot No. 5766-New overlap each other.

Second, Nordland's action for implementation of the DENR's Survey Authority to resurvey Lot No. 5766-New is clearly not an action for titling or registration of a parcel of land. Thus, respondent's act of implementing the DENR Survey Authority No. 05845 is proper given the supporting documents and other pieces of evidence presented by Nordland. Complainant therefore cannot assail the resurvey of Lot No. 5766-New for such is certainly a premature issue absent any showing that Lot No. 5766-New encroaches on complainant's Lot No. 7524. Besides, the re-survey in no way vests title nor prejudices the rights of complainant and other third parties.

Lastly, anent the issue of notices, we sustain respondent's stance that adjacent owners need not be personally notified nor should notice be posted on the property considering that the action in the petition is not for land registration or reconstitution of title. The notice requirements in P.D. 1529 and C.A. 29 only apply to actions for land registration and judicial reconstitution and, thus, clearly do not apply to the subject petition.

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 of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available. [1] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Alcaraz v. Lindo , A.M. No. MTJ-04-1539, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 142, 147.


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