ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2344-RTJ. March 29, 2006]

ATTY. RAUL H. SESBRE�O v. JUDGE GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, CEBU CITY

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 29, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2344-RTJ (Atty. Raul H. Sesbre�o v. Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Cebu City)

Under consideration is the administrative complaint filed by Atty. Raul H. Sesbre�o charging Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Cebu City with gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct relative to Special Proceeding No. 916-R entitled "Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo." She allegedly maliciously refused, despite the Court of Appeals' (CA) mandamus and injunction orders [1] cralaw and complainant's several motions, to implement the Orders [2] cralaw of the intestate court dated 29 August 1989, 30 January 1990, and 3 October 1990 awarding him attorney's fees for legal services rendered by him which redounded to the benefit of the Borromeo heirs.

In her Comment [3] cralaw , Judge Econg narrates that the special proceedings case was originally raffled to RTC Branch 15 which, through Judge German Lee, Jr., issued the Orders awarding complainant attorney's fees. Since the award of attorney's fees was not fully delivered, the said Orders became the subject of a writ of mandamus issued by the CA. Complainant then filed several motions and manifestations reminding the RTC to comply therewith. However, Judge Lee issued an Order dated 10 October 1996 directing complainant to wait until the distribution of the residue of the estate to the individual heirs before he could collect his attorney's fees. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of said Order.

Meanwhile, RTC Branch 15 issued an order of final closure of the intestate proceedings on 22 November 1996. In February 2000, the administrator of the estate submitted to the intestate court his report of the delivery of the properties to the heirs.

The case was then re-raffled to RTC Branch 5 presided over by Judge Ireneo Gako. In an Order dated 2 June 2003, Judge Gako denied complainant's motion asking the administrator to pay his fees. During the pendency of complainant's motion for reconsideration, Judge Gako inhibited himself from hearing the case in view of the administrative complaints filed by complainant against him. [4] cralaw

On 9 April 2005, the case was re-raffled to Branch 9 presided over by respondent Judge Econg. She claims she was not able to act immediately on the case because the records were incomplete. Only 16 out of the 74 volumes of the case records were transmitted to her office. She deemed it expedient to issue the 15 August 2005 Order [5] cralaw directing complainant to inform the court of the amount still due him considering that the records reveal several partial payments previously issued by the RTC in his favor. She also directed the opposing parties to file their comment/opposition thereto. Only complainant complied.

It was only in September 2005 that Judge Econg received the rest of the records. She was informed that Branch 5 did not have enough space to accommodate all the records of the case so that some remained with Branch 15. [6] cralaw

After hearing the case on 4 October 2005, she issued an order granting the issuance of a writ of execution. [7] cralaw The Clerk of Court thereby issued the said writ.

Soon thereafter, complainant filed two letters with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), one on 14 October 2005 and another on 2 November 2005, withdrawing his administrative complaint against Judge Econg on the ground that the same was a product of misapprehension of facts.

The OCA submitted its Report [8] cralaw recommending that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. It stressed that mere desistance on the part of the complainant does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint against any member of the bench and the Judiciary. However, the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that the delay in the execution was justified. Without the complete records of the case, Judge Econg cannot be reasonably expected to judiciously act on the motion for execution, especially so when there were orders previously issued by the intestate court granting cash advances to complainant. Judge Econg even took it upon herself to expedite the resolution of the said motion by seeking the necessary information from complainant himself. It did not take long before she ordered the issuance of the writ of execution after complainant complied with the 15 August 2005 Order. Consequently, complainant moved for the dismissal of the instant complaint.

This Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be in accordance with law and the facts of the case.

Time and again, we have held that desistance by a complainant in an administrative case against a member of the judiciary does not divest this Court of its jurisdiction to investigate the matters alleged in complaint or otherwise to wield its disciplinary authority because the Court has an interest in the conduct and behavior of its officials and employees and in ensuring the prompt delivery of justice to the people. [9] cralaw Thus, we proceed to resolve this complaint.

Records reveal that the RTC's Order granting attorney's fees to complainant has long become final and executory and complainant had consequently filed a motion for execution of the same. As such, execution should issue as a matter of right to the complainant. [10] cralaw It is the ministerial and mandatory duty of the trial court to enforce its own judgment once it becomes final and executory. [11] cralaw However, this rule is not without exceptions as in cases of special and exceptional nature where it becomes imperative in the interest of justice to direct the suspension of its execution or when certain facts and circumstances transpired after the judgment became final, which could render its execution unjust, impossible or inequitable. [12] cralaw

In the instant case, the delay in the execution of the judgment by respondent Judge Econg was caused by the incompleteness of the case records and the necessity to determine the amount of attorney's fees due to complainant. It would have been unjust for Judge Econg to order the issuance of the writ of execution without verifying the necessary information considering that there were cash advances previously issued in favor of complainant. Moreover, complainant failed to substantiate his imputations of malice and bad faith on the part of Judge Econg.

WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the OCA is APPROVED. The administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Dated 14 July 1995, promulgated in CA-G.R. SP-30134, rollo , pp. 24-25.

[2] cralaw As quoted in the Order of the RTC, Branch 9, Cebu City dated 4 October 2005, rollo , pp. 65-66.

[3] cralaw Id. at 32-73.

[4] cralaw Per Orders dated 26 April 2004 and 7 March 2005, id. at 27 and 29, respectively.

[5] cralaw Id. at 8.

[6] cralaw Per Letter dated 21 September 2005 of Perpetua Socorro O. Enriquez-Belarmino, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 15, Cebu City, id. at 61.

[7] cralaw Id. at 62-73.

[8] cralaw Dated 18 January 2006, id. at 80-83.

[9] cralaw Atty. Ernesto L. Pineda v. Judge Ofelia Tuazon Pinto, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1851, 13 October 2004, 440 SCRA 225, 232-233.

[10] cralaw RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 1.

[11] cralaw Serrano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133883, December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 415, 424.

[12] cralaw Per the OCA Report, citing Cabrias v. Adil , 135 SCRA 354 (1985); Ramirez, et. al. v. Court of Appeals, March 18, 1992, 207 SCRA 287; Lipana v. Development Bank of Rizal , 154 SCRA 257 (1987); Cruz v. Leabres , 314 Phil. 26, 34; Serrano v. Court of Appeals, supra note 11.


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