Ualat v Judge Ramos

FACTS: 1.) (2 administrative complaints on Judge Ramos) Complainant Sabio claims that he is an agricultural lessee of an agricultural land owned by Coma. On the other hand, complainant Ualat alleges that he is sabios caretaker2.) Complainant Sabio filed with Dept. of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a complaint for Recovery of Possession against the landowner and his brother.3.) The landowner filed against complainants a case for illegal detention with judge respondents sala.4.) DARAB ruled in favor of the complainants while Judge Respondent rendered a decision in favor of the landowner5.) Complainant now contend that resp Judge using his power and authority took cognizance of the case because of personal interest and motive. They claim that during the pendency of the case, resp Judge, thru his son and brother cultivated a portion of the land subj matter of the case. Also, DAR has exclusive jurisdiction for this case.6.) Complainant Ualat (as caretaker): his residence cannot be levied upon by the sheriff because it is not subj of the lease and he could not be held jointly and severally liable to pay the obligations of Sabio as agricultural tenant7.) Resp judge denies allegations and alleges that he did not know about the complaint with DAR and its resolution because none of this was stated in the pleadings or mentioned in the proceedings; He denies that he decided based on his personal interests and motive8.) Regarding Ualats complaint, the Judge explained that he was held jointly and severally liable because he was co-defendant in the case. However, he could have timely filed an appeal for this matter. In this case, he only appealed when judgement had already been executed.9.) In the Investigation by Exec. Judge: It was found that resp Judge in deed was not aware of the DAR case when he rendered the decision. Moreover, in this case, there was no allegation in the complaint that the case was of agrarian nature. It was also found that the contract entered into was in deed a civil lease contract and that comp violated it by subleasing it to Ualat and that the duration of the contract already expired10.) There was nothing in the lease contract agreement that the intention of the parties was to enter into a contract of tenancy12.) From the founded facts, resp. may not be faulted when he said that he had jurisdiction over the case and then proceeded to decide on its merits. However, resp should have exercised prudence and caution considering the allegation of tenancy by the defendant Ualat and his insistence that the Court has no jurisdiction by setting the case for hearin and asking clarificatory questions instead of immediately ordering the ejectment of defendants13.) With regard to Ualats complaint, the judge did not state the reason for ordering Ualat to pay jointly and severally in his decision although in his testimony, he explained that this is because complainants conspired to deprive landowner of his land. But, there was no evidence.Article 1652.The sublessee is subsidiarily liable to the lessor for any rent due from the lessee. However, the sub-lessee shall not be responsible beyond the amount of rent due from him in accordance with the terms of the sublease, at the time of the extra-judicial demand by the lessor. (Civil Code) ~ Ualat should not be liable based on this article.14.) The claim that Sabio appealed the decision in the RTC is wrong for the records does not show this and he actually admitted later on that only Ualat appealed15.) Complainant Ualat blames resp Judge for denying the appeal but the denial is correct for it was filed out of time.16.) The conclusion that resp judge has interest and motive on the land is not warranted for it was not proven and the judge explains that he has his own life to live.17.) Of the 3 errors alleged against him, only 1 was in fact committed that is holding Ualat jointly and severally liable but this was a mistake of judgment or law which every judge commits every now and then18.) With this, exec judge recommends dismissal of the complaint w/ stern warning19.) OCA disagrees.

ISSUE: WON complaint should be dismissed NO, the mere fact that resp lacks prior knowledge of the previous case before the DAR does not entirely absolve him of admin liability

RATIO: OCA: - Prudence dictate (sic) that the proper thing to do under the circumstances is to refer first the case to the DAR for certification to determine the existence of the agricultural tenancy relationship in accordance with existing agrarian laws. His act of precipitately acting on the case without coursing the latter to theDARhas put into question his real motive especially so that his personal interest on the lot is what is concerned in this case. - resp has violated PD 316 and PD 1038 which gives jurisdiction to DAR- (i)t is mandatory for the trial court to refer the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative for a preliminary determination of the relationship between the contending parties if it is a case ofejectment or attempt to harass or remove a tenant in agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn.Even without a motion, the trial court maymotu propioorder such referral.SC: - Based on the facts (inc. comp being represented by DAR), it is obvious that it was an agrarian case- His failure to refer the case to DAR despite the 2 PDs cannot be justified- It is a pressing responsibility of judges to keep abreast with the law and changes therein, as well as with the latest decisions of this Court.- Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one -- certainly not judges. ~ When the law is so elementary, it constitutes gross ignorance of the law

This was his 2nd infraction so he is further admonished and meted the max penalty with stern warning. Found liable for gross ignorance of law.

Atty. Del Callar v Judge Salvador and Deputy Sheriff Doroni

FACTS: 1.) In his earlier complaint, Atty. Del Callar charged respondent Judge Ignacio L. Salvador with serious misconduct and inefficiency (evident bad faith, bias, gross and deliberate ignorance of the law) and respondent Sheriff Angel L. Doroni, with gross misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, refusal to perform official duty and for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interests of the service2.) Re: Deputy Sheriff Doroni: It was alleged that he adamantly refused to comply with his ministerial and mandatory duties under Sec 17, Rule 39, Revised ROC on proceedings where levied property is claimed by a 3rd person3.) complainant alleges that his client was deprived of his right over his own Toyota Land Cruiser which resp. seized4.) His client served upon resp an affidavit of 3rd party claim attaching the registration cert. of the vehicle since 1992 to the current year5.) despite this, resp refused to comply with his duties under aforecited rule and instead filed with the exec. Judge his counter affidavit explaining that it was his firm and honest conviction that he should not release the vehicle to a 3rd party claimant despite the absence of a bond from attaching judgment creditor because of his own findings of facts and of his own observance of certain prov of FC and some SC decisions6.) Resp comments that he was only complying with his duty and claims that comp and his client Lim made perjurious statement that he was not furnished any receipt or copy of notice of Sheriffs sale and notice of Levy on Execution or attachment. In fact, Lim refused to receive the same and affix his signature on the receiving copy.7.) Although Lim was not a co-defendant, since he is the spouse of the defendant, his property is not exempt. Subj. property is conjugal. Thus, he cannot claim that he is a 3rd party claimant.8.) Complainant clarifie that the summons was received by the spouse when she was still a widow and not married to the complainant. Resp. sheriff was informed about these in the special proceedings before CA9.) On judge Salvador: The complaint was based on 2 grounds: (a) the court had lost its jurisdiction because the order granting execution pending appeal was issued 2 months after an earlier order giving due course to a perfected appeal; and (b)special order granting execution pending appeal contains no good reason for the immediate implementation of the decision as req by sec 2 of rule 39 of ROC10.) On feb. 27 1995, the court found the defendant11.) Resp judge argues that: (1) highly compelling reasons have long been existing to warrant the grant of execution pending appeal; (2) the mere perfection of appeal does not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction to issue execution pending appeal; (3) the trial court has inherent powers to avail of means necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect; (4) the third-party claim by Reynaldo A. Lim has no factual and legal basis; (5)there was no bad faith in the actuations of respondent; (6) the instant complaint has become moot and academic12.) note: the case involves dump trucks smashed into each other and so it is only fair and just to indemnify the plaintiff13.) However, OCA agrees that resp judge had already lost jurisdiction over the case when he denied the motion for execution pending appeal A trial court can no longer grant a motion for execution after the appeal has been perfected

ISSUE: WON

RATIO: SC: - In this case, the motion for execution was filedbeforethe perfection of the appeal.- the respondent Judge could still take cognizance of the motion for execution, since the same was seasonably filed.His jurisdiction to act on the motion continued until the matter was resolved. he fact that he had already denied such motion did not divest him of that jurisdiction.He could still entertain, as he did, a timely motion for the reconsideration of his earlier order to enable him to correct mistakes, if there are any, without the intervention of a higher court.- The respondent Judge cannot, therefore, be faulted from taking cognizance of the motion for the reconsideration which was filed by the plaintiff twenty days after the receipt of the order denying immediate execution.Neither irregularity be ascribed to him in not requiring the movant to put up bond because bond is not an indispensable requisite for the granting of a writ of execution pending appeal- The respondent Judges fault lies in his failure to state in his Special Order good reasons to justify the issuance of the writ of execution.This is in clear violation of Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires that there be a good reason for issuing a writ of execution pending appeal and that the good reason be stated in a special order.- he should be studious of the principles of law and diligent in endeavoring to ascertain the facts.He should exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules- Nevertheless, judges may not be held administratively responsible for every error or mistake in the performance of their duties; otherwise, that would make their position unbearable.To merit disciplinary sanction, the error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate, or in bad faith.In the absence of proof to the contrary, defective or erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith

The judge is ADMONISHED for having failed to exercise due care in the performance of his adjudicatory functionsThe case against resp deputy sheriff is dismissed for lack of merit