ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2362-RTJ. June 19, 2006]

OSCAR RIZALADO v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE EDGARDO T. LLOREN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 18, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 19, 2006 .

Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2362-RTJ (Oscar Rizalado v. Executive Judge Edgardo T. Lloren, Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cagayan de Oro City)

Under consideration is the administrative complaint [1] cralaw filed by Oscar C. Rizalado (Rizalado) charging Executive Judge Edgardo T. Lloren (Judge Lloren) who is also the Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Cagayan de Oro City, with abuse of authority and/or discretion and partiality in relation to Civil Case No. 92-368 entitled Dr. Othello Ch. Guzman, et. al. v. Cynthia Espanol, et. al. for quieting of title, etc., and Civil Case No. 92-409 entitled Mario Ch. Guzman, et. al. v. Reuben T. Guzman, et. al. for annulment of lease contract, etc.

Rizalado is the attorney-in-fact of the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned civil cases that were both heard and decided by the late Judge Arcadio Fabria, then Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 21.

Sometime in 2003, Reuben Guzman, one of the defendants in the civil cases, filed with the RTC a motion for the partial release of the rentals deposited in court for the payment of realty taxes due on the property subject of litigation. Judge Fabria issued an Order dated 11 August 2003 allowing Guzman to withdraw the amount of P522,085.68 from the rental funds deposited with the RTC-Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC). Rizalado alleges that Judge Lloren in his capacity as Executive Judge, authorized the release of the amount of P587,874.00 which was P65,788.32 more than the original amount stated in Judge Fabria's Order, as shown by the 20 January 2004 letter [2] cralaw of Atty. Beverly Beja of the OCC, and the Land Bank check [3] cralaw issued on 11 November 2003. He contends that Reuben Guzman bribed Judge Lloren for the release of the unauthorized amount.

Rizalado continues that the plaintiffs in the aforementioned cases filed a motion for execution of the Order of the court dated 14 February 1995 issued by then Presiding Judge Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. (now Justice of the Court of Appeals), and to cite defendants-tenants in direct contempt of court [4] cralaw ("motion for execution"), which Judge Lloren refused to resolve on the ground that the Joint Decision in said cases was on appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA). Judge Lloren did not act upon their motion for reconsideration on the ground that the same did not contain a Roll number, IBP receipt number and PTR number of the signatories.

Rizalado insists that Judge Lloren's order to defer the resolution of their motion for execution is without basis as the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by appeal. He adds that the CA had already decided the appealed cases on 29 February 1996, which decision was affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. L-125489 in a resolution dated 11 November 1996. He avers that Judge Lloren's inaction was inspired by bias in favor of Reuben Guzman and the tenants of the subject property who took advantage of the delay in the implementation of the 14 February 1995 Order.

In his supplemental complaint, [5] cralaw Rizalado alleges that on 17 October 2005, he, as attorney-in-fact of the plaintiffs, filed an Urgent Motion to Account Withdrawal of Rentals Deposited in Court for Payment of Taxes with the City Government [6] cralaw ("urgent motion") which motion was denied by Judge Lloren on the ground that the cases are on appeal. Rizalado argues that in denying his motion, Judge Lloren disobeyed the standing order of Justice Lim, Jr. and at the same time bypassed the final resolution of the Supreme Court dated 11 November 1996. He then claims that such inaction on Judge Lloren's part further shows his partiality in favor of Reuben Guzman, and his involvement in the anomaly relative to the unauthorized withdrawal of the deposited rental funds.

In his Comment, [7] cralaw Judge Lloren claims that he does not personally know Reuben Guzman and he is not in any way related to Yolanda Ang Lloren, one of the defendants-tenants in the civil cases. The previous presiding judge decided said cases on 13 February 2003 and he was designated as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 21 only on 9 November 2004. He vehemently denies the accusation that he deceived the court by allowing the withdrawal of P587,874.00 instead of P522,085.68 and that he accepted a bribe for the release of an unauthorized amount of P65,788.32. He maintains that the alleged unauthorized amount was never released since only the amount of P522,085.68 as stated in the check was withdrawn. He claims that the certification dated 20 January 2004 issued by the OCC was incorrect as evidenced by Atty. Beja's second letter [8] cralaw to Rizalado dated 23 February 2004 rectifying the error by stating that only P522,085.68 was withdrawn and that the amount of P65,788.32 is still in the bank. Furthermore, the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Irene Alejado-Meso sent a letter [9] cralaw to Rizalado explaining the correct figures but the latter still chooses to believe otherwise.

As regards the series of motions filed by the plaintiffs, Judge Lloren argues that he had sufficient and justifiable grounds in issuing his assailed orders. First, he denied the motion for execution for want of jurisdiction since the cases are on appeal to the CA and all the records are with the appellate court up to the present as certified by the Acting Branch Clerk of Court. [10] cralaw Moreover, the movants' annexes in said motion are hearsay for being unauthenticated copies. Second, he did not entertain the motion for reconsideration as it was filed by persons who are not members of the Philippine Bar and are not authorized to practice law. Third, he denied the urgent motion likewise for want of jurisdiction. Judge Lloren stresses that what was previously decided by the CA and this Court as referred to by Rizalado involves the 14 February 1995 Order of then Judge Lim, Jr. and not the Joint Decision on the main cases which are still pending with the CA. He also points out that said motion did not comply with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court so that it should be treated as a mere scrap of paper for failure to set the motion for hearing and to show proof of service.

Judge Lloren argues that the complaint is malicious and baseless and prays that Rizalado be cited for contempt for illegal practice of law.

In his Rejoinder, [11] cralaw Rizalado opines that the Joint Decision issued by Judge Fabria violated the principles of res judicata because the questions involved therein were already resolved in his 14 February 1995 Order which allegedly had already become final by virtue of the Supreme Court resolution. He argues that Judge Lloren's refusal to implement the said court order prejudiced the rights and interests of the plaintiffs. He further alleges that Atty. Alejado-Meso's letter did not justify the correct figures of deposits for tax payment. The amount should not even be P522,085.68 as ordered by Judge Fabria, but only P484,138.67. He insists that the difference of P162,688.10 was misappropriated so that an audit of RTC Branch 21 must be undertaken. He avers that Judge Lloren fails to see that the plaintiffs cannot afford to hire a lawyer. They cannot pay for taxes and expenses of litigation as the rental income from the subject property had been withheld from them.

In its Report, [12] cralaw the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be dismissed for being clearly unfounded and baseless. There is no basis for Rizalado's allegation that an unauthorized amount of P65,788.32 was withdrawn from the rental deposits with the OCC. There is ample evidence to prove that only the amount of P522,085.68 was withdrawn and the alleged balance of P65,788.32 is still with the bank. As to the alleged misappropriated sum of P162,688.10, the Office of the City Treasurer informed Rizalado in a letter [13] cralaw dated 16 February 2004 that the same is deposited in trust with their office and may be withdrawn by any proper party. Rizalado even requested the City Treasurer to apply the same to the payment of delinquent real property taxes. The OCA further found that Judge Lloren was correct in denying plaintiffs' motions as the RTC had no more jurisdiction over the civil cases that are pending appeal with the CA. Rizalado cannot invoke res judicata since what was elevated to and decided by the CA and later by this Court was the 14 February 1995 interlocutory order of the court. The said order did not completely dispose of the civil cases since they were decided only on 13 February 2003. Moreover, Judge Lloren was correct in not entertaining the said pleadings since they did not comply with the Rules of Court and were filed by persons not authorized to practice law.

This Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be in accordance with law and the facts of the case. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. [14] cralaw Here, Rizalado miserably failed to substantiate his charges of abuse of authority and bribery against Judge Lloren. As regards Judge Lloren's alleged abuse of discretion and bias in disposing of plaintiffs' motions, the same involves matters of judicial adjudication that is not the proper subject of an administrative complaint. The filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is neither the appropriate nor substitute remedy to question the propriety or impropriety of his decision. There are ample remedies under the Rules of Court provided for the purpose. It is axiomatic that, where some other judicial means is available, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular. [15] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the OCA is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Judge Edgardo T. Lloren is DISMISSED for lack of merit. (Velasco, J., no part due to prior action as Court Administrator.)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-26.

[2] cralaw Id. at 18.

[3] cralaw Id. at 5; The said check shows the amount of P522,085.68 only but it is reflected therein that the same is in relation to the withdrawal of rental deposits as per the original receipts covering the rental deposits totaling P587,874.00 as against the records of the OCC.

[4] cralaw Id. at 9-12.

[5] cralaw Id. at 120-137.

[6] cralaw Id. at 123-137.

[7] cralaw Id. at 27-92.

[8] cralaw Id. at 175.

[9] cralaw Id. at 177.

[10] cralaw Id. at 89.

[11] cralaw Id. at 145-182.

[12] cralaw Id. at 183-189.

[13] cralaw Id. at 178.

[14] cralaw Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).

[15] cralaw Atty. Hilario v. Hon. Ocampo III, supra citing Santos v. Orlino, Adm. Mat. No. RTJ-98-1418, 25 September 1998, 296 SCRA 101.


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