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
caretaker
2.) 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 landowner
5.) 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
tenant
7.) 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 motive
8.) 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 expired
10.) There was nothing in the lease contract agreement that the intention
of the parties was to enter into a contract of tenancy
12.) 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 defendants
13.) 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 appealed
15.) 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 then
18.) With this, exec judge recommends dismissal of the complaint w/ stern
warning
19.) 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 the DAR has 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 of ejectment or attempt to harass or remove a tenant in agricultural
land primarily devoted to rice and corn. Even without a motion, the trial
court may motu propio order 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 service
2.) 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 3 rd
person
3.) complainant alleges that his client was deprived of his right over his
own Toyota Land Cruiser which resp. seized
4.) His client served upon resp an affidavit of 3 rd party claim attaching the
registration cert. of the vehicle since 1992 to the current year
5.) 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 decisions
6.) 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 CA
9.) 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 ROC
10.) On feb. 27 1995, the court found the defendant
11.) 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 thirdparty 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 academic
12.) note: the case involves dump trucks smashed into each other and so
it is only fair and just to indemnify the plaintiff
13.) 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 filed before the
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 functions
The case against resp deputy sheriff is dismissed for lack of merit