ChanRobles Virtual law Library

OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2045-RTJ. March 29, 2006]

HEIRS OF VITALIANO LAUDIZA, REPRESENTED BY ROSA L. MEDINA versus JUDGE NOVATO T. CAJIGAL, RTC, BRANCH 19, BACOOR, CAVITE

Sirs/Mesdames:

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

OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2045-RTJ (Heirs of Vitaliano Laudiza, represented by Rosa L. Medina versus Judge Novato T. Cajigal, RTC, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite.)

Before the Court is a sworn COMPLAINT filed by the heirs of Vitaliano Laudiza through their attorney-in-fact Rosa L. Medina charging Judge Novato T. Cajigal, RTC, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Bias/Impartiality) and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, relative to the latter's disposition of Civil Case No. BCV-90-14, an action for quieting of title, entitled The Heirs of Vitaliano Laudiza and Enrique Laudiza, as represented by Rosa L. Medina, in her capacity as attorney-in-fact, Plaintiffs versus The Heirs of Cesar Casal, CRS Realty and Development Corporation and the Register of Deeds of Cavite, Defendants; Bennie Cuason, Intervenor.

The complaint alleged that respondent actively participated in the out-of-court conference among the parties in said case and exhorted the complainants to enter into a compromise agreement with the intervenor for an amount which is a mere fraction of the total value of the disputed property, and that the respondent was most insistent that the parties enter a compromise agreement despite the vigorous objection of the complainants, allegedly because the respondent expects to get P3,000,000.00 from the intervenor. Apart from the prayer for disciplinary action, complainants also pray that the respondent be barred from handling the case and for the transfer of its venue from Bacoor, Cavite to either Manila or Makati City.

In his Comment, the respondent denied the charges, claiming that it was the counsel for intervenor who manifested his client's offer to settle the case, whereupon he (respondent) advised the parties to explore the possibility of amicable settlement considering that the case has been pending for so long in his sala. Respondent also alleged not having received any amount from the intervenor relative to the same case. Finally, to erase any doubt as to his partiality, respondent informed the Court that he had already inhibited himself from the case.

In a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), dated 27 September 2004, complainants confirmed respondent's inhibition.

In a Memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the OCA recommended that this administrative complaint be referred to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation.

We note, however, that herein case has been superseded by the eventual retirement of the respondent on June 20, 2005.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to REQUIRE the complainants to show cause why the instant administrative case should not be dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic by respondent's retirement from the Bench.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Second Division

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE