ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. OCA-IPI-97-334-RTJ.December 13, 1999]

JOSEPH B. BOHLER, JR. vs. JUDGE ANDRADE

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is resolution of this Court dated DEC 13, 1999.

A.M. No. OCA-IPI-97-334-RTJ(Joseph B. Bohler, Jr. vs. Judge Amalia R. Andrade, RTC, Branch 5, Manila (then Branch 2, KaIibo, Aklan.))

This is a complaint for serious misconduct and ignorance of the law filed by Joseph B. Bohler, Jr. against respondent Judge Amalia R. Andrade of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila, in connection with her handling of Civil Case No. 3084, entitled "Joseph Bohler v. Carlito Eliserio, et al.," when she was judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Kalibo, Aklan.

Complainant brought the said case for the annulment of sale of a parcel of land made by his brother Emmanuel Bohler to the spouses Carlito and Remedios Eliserio on the ground that the land was inherited property and the sale was made without the written consent of complainant. Respondent judge ruled in favor of complainant but ordered him to pay the defendant spouses the redemption price in the total amount of P138,000.00. After complainant deposited the redemption price with the branch clerk of court, respondent judge issued a writ of execution to place complainant in possession of the subject property. Defendant spouses moved for reconsideration, requesting a six-month grace period and the release of the redemption price to allow them to relocate and construct a house of their own. Respondent judge gave the defendant spouses 60 days to vacate the subject property but ordered the release of the redemption price to them. After the defendant spouses had vacated the subject property, complainant moved to require them to pay the value of the improvements amounting to P20,000.00, which allegedly had been destroyed. In the order, dated May 12, 1994, respondent judge denied the motion for complainant's failure to serve a copy of the same on the defendant spouses. Complainant then moved that the defendant spouses be cited for contempt for the alleged destruction of the said improvements. Respondent judge set the motion for hearing but was not able to resolve the same in view of her appointment as the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila.

Three years later, or on March 5, 1997, the instant complaint was filed, accusing respondent judge of ignorance of the law and partiality in releasing the redemption price to the defendant spouses before the complainant was placed in actual possession of the subject property, and in outrightly denying complainant's motion to hold defendant spouses liable for the destruction of the improvements thereon. Complainant alleges that had not respondent judge allowed the release of the redemption price, the damage to his property could have been avoided.

In her comment, respondent judge denies the allegations in the complaint. She contends that the case had long become final and executory and that in fact, the houses and the improvements on the lot in question had already been in the possession of the complainant since July 22, 1994. She admits though that a motion to cite the defendants in contempt of court was still pending when she left in view of her appointment as presiding judge of the RTC of Manila. She also contends that she released the redemption price to the defendant spouses because the latter had expressed their intention to comply with her decision but they needed reasonable time and resources to construct a house before they could vacate the subject property. She also states that she denied the complainant's motion to require defendant spouses to reimburse the value of improvements allegedly removed or destroyed by them because said motion was a litigated one, which was filed without the required previous notice to the defendants. She denied that in deciding the case she was motivated by any consideration other than its merit.

The Office of the Court Administrator submitted a report containing the following findings and recommendation:

After a careful perusal of the records, we find the respondent judge not culpable as charged. The release of the deposited amount to the defendants and the denial of the complainant's motion to require defendants to reimburse the plaintiff for value of improvements removed do not constitute ignorance of the law. To constitute ignorance of the law, the subject finding or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.

We believe that if, at all, the respondent judge misinterpreted the law. She was not motivated by bad faith. Even so, respondent should have taken into account that the complainant promptly complied with the order to deposit the redemption price with the trial court. She should also not have allowed the withdrawal of the entire amount considering that there was a request on complainant's part to withhold part of the same until the defendants had transferred possession completely to him. She should be reminded that a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

RECOMMENDATION:

Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court with the recommendation that the respondent judge be ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the discharge of her functions and duties in order to avoid any impression of impropriety that could erode the faith and trust reposed by the public and the litigants in the dispensation of justice.

The aforequoted findings and recommendation of OCA are well taken. Respondent judge should not have allowed the release of the entire amount of the redemption price to the defendant spouses until after the complainant had been placed in possession of the subject property to guaranty the defendant spouses' faithful compliance with the decision. Respondent judge explained that she released the redemption price to the defendant spouses because she was moved by compassion for them who had expressed willingness to vacate the subject property but had requested a reasonable grace period and the release of the redemption price in order for them to construct a new house. Respondent judge acted out of compassion to one of the parties, although she should also have been mindful of the rights of the other party. If only respondent judge exercised good judgment in the release of the redemption price, the appearance of impropriety should have been avoided. Avoiding the giving of even the slightest impression of impropriety in all the activities of a judge is the only way to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

WHEREFORE, Judge Amalia R. Andrade of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila, is hereby ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the discharge of her functions and to refrain from giving impression of impropriety. She is warned that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE