ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[OCA IPI No. 03-1894-RTJ.� December 15, 2004]
MAGPULONG vs. VALDEVILLA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 15 2004.
OCA IPI No. 03-1894-RTJ (Re: Ramon Magpulong, et al. vs. Judge Downey Valdevilla, RTC, Branch 39, Cagayan de Oro City.)
Considering the Report of the Court Administrator dated September 6, 2004, to wit:
1.������ AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT dated 20 October 2003 of complainants Ramon B. Magpulong, Felix B. Magpulong and Leon Magpulong Aguipo, Jr. charging respondent Judge Downey Valdevilla with Grave Abuse of Discretion and violation of Canon 12, Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainants aver that on 17 October 1983, plaintiffs Patricio Magpulong and Jesusa Aput - who were later substituted by Elena C. Damasing, filed a complaint for recovery and partition of hereditary estate against defendants Francisco Magpulong and Sofio Magpulong before RTC-Misamis Oriental, Branch 20. The hereditary properties subject of controversy are Lot Nos. 133553-A and 13000.
The trial court ruled in favor of defendants. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court. The appellate court ordered the partition of Lot No. 133553-A and the accounting of the proceeds gathered from said lot. Moreover, the Court of Appeals declared Lot No. 13000 and the ancestral house located on Lot No. 13352-A as part of the estate to be partitioned among the heirs. The decision rendered by the Court of Appeals was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The case was remanded to the RTC-Cagayan de Oro, Branch 20 for execution. Subsequently, the case was re-raffled to RTC-Cagayan de Oro, Branch 39 - which is presided by herein respondent Judge Downey Valdevilla.
Respondent issued an Order dated 29 November 1996, approving , the commissioner's report and ordering that Lot No. 13352-A-1 be given to Patricio Magpulong; Lot No. 13352-A-2 be given to Elena Damasing, heirs of Matilda; Lot No. 13352-A-3 to Francisco Magpulong or his heirs. Furthermore, respondent ordered that the Income obtained from Lot No. 13352-A and Lot No. 13000 be divided equally among the heirs and that the proceeds of the sale of the ancestral house be also divided among the heirs.
Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration with regard to the inclusion of Lot No. 13000 in the accounting of proceeds. Respondent issued an Order dated 1 April 1997 granting the said motion and ordering the exclusion of Lot No. 13000.
Dissatisfied, defendants appealed from Order dated 29 November 1996 to the Court of Appeals contending that the respondent gravely erred in not awarding to defendants the portions of the land already occupied by them and where their semi-concrete houses are standing and in adopting the proposal of the plaintiffs as the basis of accounting the produce of the subject land to be divided among the parties.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated 26 April 2002, found the appeal to be without merit because the property was obtained by defendants through fraud and their occupancy of the same is tainted with bad faith. Hence, the appellate court affirmed respondent's Order dated 29 November 1996 in its entirety.
On 5 June 2002, respondent, upon plaintiffs' motion, ordered the issuance of the writ of execution of judgment.
Defendants filed a motion to exempt the lot on which stands a family home from execution.� This motion was granted by respondent in his Order dated 2 October 2002 which held that family homes of defendants should be exempt from execution pursuant to Article 155 of the Family Code.
Complainants contend that the Order dated 2 October 2002 of respondent created confusion and caused the continuing litigation of the case. Therefore, the issuance of such order is an unjust act and unbefitting a judicial official. The Court of Appeals had already resolved the issue on the houses built on the subject lots, and the award of said property to defendants could not be given due course because the same was obtained through fraud and the occupancy by defendants was tainted with bad faith. Moreover, complainants aver that the Order dated 2 October 2002 contradicts the earlier decision/order of respondent and modified that of the Court of Appeals.
Complainants argue that by holding that the houses of defendants are family homes and exempt from execution, respondent's Order will, in effect, render the decision of the appellate court nugatory as it will grant defendants two shares - one that is awarded to them through a decision; and the other, the order granting the lot where the defendants' houses were built as family homes.
2.������ COMMENT dated 29 December 2003 of respondent refuting the foregoing allegations.
Respondent avers that the main ground relied upon by complainants is the issuance by the former of Order dated 2 October 2002 which granted defendants' motion to exempt from execution the family home of defendants.� In relation thereto, respondent notes that the validity of his Order dated 2 October 2002 was not an issue elevated by defendants to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 57351), as only the validity of the Order dated 29 November 1996 was raised by defendants. Respondent explains that the family home issue was only raised via a petition for certiorari dated 17 December 2003 filed by the heirs of Patricio Magpulong with the Court of Appeals.
Respondent contends that, when he issued the Order dated 2 October 2002, he did not revise the decision of the Court of Appeals nor contradict his own decision/order. He avers that he merely exempted the family homes of defendants from execution. Respondent avers that he issued the subject order in good faith and the same is what he believes to be correct under applicable laws.
Furthermore, respondent contends that complainants violated the rule on non-forum shopping and should be held for contempt. In a petition before the Court of Appeals, Mr. Felix Magpulong - one of the complainants, executed an affidavit of non-forum shopping where he certified under oath that he had not caused the filing of any action or proceeding involving the same parties and issues before any other tribunal or agency. Respondent avers that Mr. Magpulong lied under oath because he did not state the fact that he had filed an administrative complaint against respondent. Moreover, the main issue in the instant administrative complaint, which is the propriety of Order dated 2 October 2002, is the same issue in the petition for certiorari filed by complainants with the Court of Appeals.
3.������ SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT dated 21 January 2004 of the respondent invoking the ruling of the Supreme Court in "Bello, III vs. Diaz" (A.M. MTJ-001311 dated 3 October 2003) for the dismissal of the administrative complaint against him. In Bello, the Supreme Court ruled that resort to administrative remedies may be premature if the propriety of the judge's decision is still pending before the appellate courts for resolution.
.����������������� .������������������� .
EVALUATION: The issues raised in the administrative complaint are the propriety of the orders of respondent for the execution of the decision of the Court of Appeals, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, pertaining to the partition of the subject hereditary estate. A careful analysis would show that the issues involved in the instant case are judicial in nature and could be best resolved in a judicial proceeding.
It is worthy to note that complainants filed a petition for certiorari on 17 December 2003 with the Court of Appeals raising the issues found in the administrative complaint, i.e., respondent's order exempting particular properties, being family homes, from execution. Therefore, any finding as to the propriety of respondent's action would be premature until the appellate court shall have settled the issue.
Respondent correctly invoked the doctrine in Bello, III vs. Abesamis, supra., which states that:
The established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, -are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunal has spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened.
RECOMMENDATION:��������� Respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court our recommendation that the instant administrative case be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with the law and the facts on record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Downey Valdevilla is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
