January 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-06-2024 : January 31, 2007] TIRSO P. MARIANO VS. JUDGE ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN, CLERK OF COURT JESUSA I. MAMPO AND SHERIFF IV SEBASTIAN T. BOLIVAR :
[A.M. No. RTJ-06-2024 : January 31, 2007]
TIRSO P. MARIANO VS. JUDGE ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN, CLERK OF COURT JESUSA I. MAMPO AND SHERIFF IV SEBASTIAN T. BOLIVAR
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 31 January 2007.
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2024 - (TIRSO P. MARIANO vs. JUDGE ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN, CLERK OF COURT JESUSA I. MAMPO and SHERIFF IV SEBASTIAN T. BOLIVAR)
Before us is a complainant's compliance[1] with our Resolution dated 17 October 2006 requiring him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing what appears to be a clearly baseless and unfounded administrative complaint against herein respondents and for withholding from this Court important information relative to the suit. Complainant explains that in filing the instant case, he relied on the two orders of the lower court namely, the Resolution dated 13 March 2001 which quashed the Writ of Execution issued by the court a quo dated 18 January 2001 in Civil Case No. RTC-99-4467, and the Order dated 29 December 2003 which denied the issuance of the Writ of Execution in the same case. According to him, both are valid and binding for not having been revoked and set aside through explicit orders.
After careful deliberation, we find complainant's explanation sufficient and his acts not to be of such a contemptuous nature as to warrant reprobation. According to him, he filed the instant administrative complaint on 27 December 2005 before this Court believing in good faith that the orders of the lower court quashing the Writ of Execution and a later order denying plaintiff's motion for execution were still in full force and effect. However, complainant being a lawyer and an officer of the court, he is sternly warned to be more circumspect and forthright in his dealings with the Court and avoid being cast as a lawyer who resorts to procedural maneuvers, including administrative action, to retaliate against his adversaries. Such behavior is deplorable in itself and results in the complete waste of the time and resources of the Court and of the litigants.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant's compliance is hereby noted. Complainant, however, is STERNLY WARNED to observe more circumspection and forthrightness in his dealings with the Court.
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2024 - (TIRSO P. MARIANO vs. JUDGE ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN, CLERK OF COURT JESUSA I. MAMPO and SHERIFF IV SEBASTIAN T. BOLIVAR)
Before us is a complainant's compliance[1] with our Resolution dated 17 October 2006 requiring him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing what appears to be a clearly baseless and unfounded administrative complaint against herein respondents and for withholding from this Court important information relative to the suit. Complainant explains that in filing the instant case, he relied on the two orders of the lower court namely, the Resolution dated 13 March 2001 which quashed the Writ of Execution issued by the court a quo dated 18 January 2001 in Civil Case No. RTC-99-4467, and the Order dated 29 December 2003 which denied the issuance of the Writ of Execution in the same case. According to him, both are valid and binding for not having been revoked and set aside through explicit orders.
After careful deliberation, we find complainant's explanation sufficient and his acts not to be of such a contemptuous nature as to warrant reprobation. According to him, he filed the instant administrative complaint on 27 December 2005 before this Court believing in good faith that the orders of the lower court quashing the Writ of Execution and a later order denying plaintiff's motion for execution were still in full force and effect. However, complainant being a lawyer and an officer of the court, he is sternly warned to be more circumspect and forthright in his dealings with the Court and avoid being cast as a lawyer who resorts to procedural maneuvers, including administrative action, to retaliate against his adversaries. Such behavior is deplorable in itself and results in the complete waste of the time and resources of the Court and of the litigants.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant's compliance is hereby noted. Complainant, however, is STERNLY WARNED to observe more circumspection and forthrightness in his dealings with the Court.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 132.
