ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2358-RTJ. September 18, 2006]

VILLA ESPERANZA DEVELOPMENT, INC., REPRESENTED BY GERIBERTO L. DRAGON v. JUDGE CESAR A. MANGROBANG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, IMUS, CAVITE

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 18, 2006.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2358-RTJ (Villa Esperanza Development, Inc., Represented by Geriberto L. Dragon v. Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, lmus, Cavite )

Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator dated August 9, 2006, to wit:

1. A VERIFIED COMPLAINT (with Annexes) dated September 28, 2005 of Geriberto L. Dragon charging Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang, RTC, Branch 22, lmus, Cavite with Gross Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Partiality and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Order/Decision relative to Civil Case No. 828-93 entitled "Isabelita Francisco, et al. v. Villa Esperanza Development, Inc." for Quieting of Title and Annulment of Title with Damages.

Complainant is the defendant in the abovementioned case. He assails the decision dated February 11, 1998 of respondent judge which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs x x x.

x x x x

According to complainant, respondent erred when he ruled that the title of defendant was seemingly acquired fraudulently and under questionable circumstances because of the following reasons: (1) the deed of absolute sale in favor of defendant was acknowledged before a Notary Public in Makati whose notarial commission is not within Makati; (2) the residence certificate of seller Malicsi in the deed of sale to defendant was issued in Rosario, Cavite when, in fact, he was a resident of Dasmari�as, Cavite, and (3) the conflicting statements of complainant's witnesses regarding the date of execution, date of notarization and date of payment by complainant to the vendor herein. Complainant contends, citing R.F. Navarro & Company, Inc. v. Vailoces , 361 SCRA 139, that a document [notarized] by a notary public beyond or not within his commission does not affect the veracity of the document and does not constitute a forgery. Also, the fact that the residence certificate of Malicsi (the one who executed the deed of sale) was issued in Rosario, Cavite though he resides in Dasmari�as, Cavite does not adversely affect the validity of the document and make it a forgery. To support his contention that the conflicting statements of complainant's witnesses regarding the date of execution, date of notarization and date of payment of the absolute deed of sale do not constitute forgery, complainant cites Tristan v. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 663.

Complainant also faults respondent in his ruling that the plaintiffs have a better and valid right over the property in question. Complainant argues that the finding is erroneous and contrary to law and jurisprudence. He asserts that the case is one of double sale, and considering that he purchased the property eight (8) years earlier or prior to the sale of Malicsi to Isabelita Francisco and he registered the sale ahead of Isabelita Francisco, the fundamental principle in sales and land registration that when two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail must (sic) be followed.

Complainant also alleges grave abuse of authority on the part of respondent for dismissing his appeal in view of his failure to pay the appellate docket fees and granting defendant's motion for issuance of a writ of execution. Complainant declares, citing the Rules and court pronouncements, that once a notice of appeal is filed the appeal is perforce perfected and the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, both over the record and subject of the case; that approval of the notice of appeal becomes the ministerial duty of the lower court provided the appeal is filed on time; that it is the responsibility of the Clerk of Court to attach the proof of payment of the appellate docket fee to the original of the record; that thereafter, it is the duty of the Clerk of Court to transmit the records to the appellate court; that after transmittal of the records the dismissal may be made by the Court of Appeals; and that the failure to pay the appellate docket fee does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal, the dismissal being discretionary on the part of the appellate court.

Lastly, complainant laments respondent's actuation of not addressing one of the issues - whether or not the subject deed of absolute sale allegedly executed by plaintiff Ildefonso Malicsi in favor of defendant on February 6, 1981 was a forgery. According to complainant, respondent ignored the said issue because he saw, by comparing the signature of Malicsi appearing in the deed of sale in favor of complainant and the other deed of sale in favor of Isabelita Francisco, that what was forged was the signature of Malicsi in the latter deed of sale. It is complainant's stance that respondent should have ordered the submission of the disputed signature in the said documents to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination in order to settle the issue.

2. A COMMENT, with Annexes, dated November 26, 2005, of respondent explaining that all the issues in the complaint had already been raised by complainant before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. To enlighten the Court and to bolster his position that the administrative complaint is purely a harassment suit, respondent pointed out the following:

A. In a Resolution promulgated on August 12, 1998, the 6th Division of the Court of Appeals dismissed complainant Villa Esperanza Development Inc.'s petition for certiorari to set aside the Order dated May 12, 1998 (Order dismissing complainant's appeal for non-payment of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the period for taking an appeal);

B. In a Resolution promulgated on September 16, 1999, the 6th Division of the Court of Appeals denied complainant's Motion for Reconsideration on the Resolution dated August 12, 1998;

C. In a Resolution dated February 16, 2000, the Supreme Court denied complainant's petition for certiorari holding that complainant failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged resolutions as to warrant the exercise by the Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction over the case.

3. A MANIFESTATION (with Annexes) dated January 5, 2006 of complainant stating that on December 28, 2005 he filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment of the Decision dated February 11, 1998 and the Order dated May 12, 1998 in Civil Case No. 828-93.

EVALUATION: A thorough evaluation of the Verified Complaint reveals that the alleged errors committed by respondent judge pertain to the exercise of his adjudicative functions. Such errors cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies which complainant already did when he elevated to the Court of Appeals questions of law on the legality of the Order dated May 12, 1998 (Order dismissing petitioner's appeal for non-payment of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the period for taking an appeal). In fact, complainant's petition for certiorari seeking the setting aside of the Order dated May 12, 1998 was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, 6th Division per Resolution promulgated on August 12, 1998, and his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal was denied by the appellate court on September 16, 1999. Also, complainant has filed on December 28, 2005 a Petition for Annulment of Judgment of the Decision dated February 11, 1998. The administrative charges of gross ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, grave abuse of discretion, and gross misconduct cannot, therefore, be sustained.

With respect to the charge of partiality, we fail to discern any deliberate or malicious intent on the part of respondent judge to favor the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 828-93 nor to cause damage to defendant, complainant herein. We are convinced that the issuance of the said order was done in a valid and judicious exercise of the functions and duties of respondent judge.

RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended of the Honorable Court that the instant complaint against Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang, RTC, Branch 22, Imus, Cavite be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court agrees with the foregoing recommendation.

The filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the assailed decision or order, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. [1] cralaw An administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by an order or judgment, for until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether the respondent judge is administratively liable. [2] cralaw

Moreover, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. [3] cralaw To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in judgment. [4] cralaw

The Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003 , 415 SCRA 377, 382, citing Balsamo v. Suan , 411 SCRA 189 (2003).

[2] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio , 448 Phil. 37, 44 (2003).

[3] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o , A.M. No. RTJ-93-955, December 12, 1995 , 251 SCRA 174, 194.

[4] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio , supra, at 42.


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