TIRSO
P. MARIANO, A.M.
No. RTJ-06-2024
Complainant, [Formerly
OCA IPI No. 06-2410-RTJ)
Present:
-
versus - QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
JUDGE
ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN, TINGA, and
CLERK
OF COURT JESUSA
SHERIFF
IV SEBASTIAN T. BOLIVAR,
Respondents.
Promulgated:
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
Under
consideration is the administrative complaint[1] dated 29
November 2005 filed by Tirso P. Mariano (complainant) charging Judge Zeida
Aurora B. Garfin (Judge Garfin) with grave abuse of judicial discretion and
gross ignorance of the law; and Clerk of Court Jesusa I. Mampo (Atty. Mampo)
and Sheriff IV Sebastian T. Bolivar (Bolivar) with abuse of authority relative
to the issuance and implementation of a writ of execution (“Writ”) in Civil
Case No. RTC 99-4467 entitled “Heirs of the Late Macario A. Mariano v. Tirso
Mariano” for unlawful detainer (“civil case”).
Complainant was the defendant in the
aforementioned civil case that was commenced at the Metropolitan Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC),
While
complainant’s appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals (CA), the RTC
ordered the issuance of a writ of execution on
Two years
later, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for execution dated
On 11
February 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking the
court to apply Sections 19 and 21 of Rule 70, and stating that complainant as
defendant had not been religiously and promptly paying the required periodic
rentals and had in fact failed to make rental payments from September 2003 up
to the filing of the motion per the certification issued by the Office of the
Clerk of Court on 10 February 2005.[8] Judge Garfin granted the motion on
Complainant
essentially anchors his complaint on the alleged spurious and anomalous
issuance and implementation of the Writ.
First, he avers that it was issued beyond the five (5)-year period
provided in Section 6,[11]
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Second,
it was issued when the case had already been appealed to this Court, thus
violative of Section 2,[12]
Rule 39. Third, he alleges that he was
not notified of the motion for execution which led to the issuance of the
Writ. He concludes that the issuance of
the Writ was contrary to the still standing Orders dated
Complainant
also impugns Bolivar for “forcibly and tremendously”[13]
implementing the Writ when the latter allegedly demolished a portion of
complainant’s house and fence when the only subject of the Writ was the
possession of the premises.
In her Comment[14]
dated
Judge Garfin claims that complainant’s remedy lies with the
proper court through a proper judicial action and not with the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) by means of an administrative complaint. She likewise contends that the complaint is
baseless as it does not allege fraud, dishonesty or corruption on her part and
does not show that she acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do
injustice in issuing the assailed orders.
Anent the implementation of the Writ, she states that no
information reached her nor was there any formal complaint filed by complainant
with the RTC concerning any irregularity allegedly committed by Bolivar. She posits that this baseless allegation is a
mere attempt to give more teeth to the instant complaint.
Meanwhile, Atty. Mampo in her Comment[16]
dated
For his part, Bolivar narrates in his
Comment[18]
dated
In its
Report,[19]
the OCA found no merit in the complaint.
It observed that the charges against Judge Garfin are judicial in nature
for which there is an appropriate judicial remedy. In fact, complainant availed of such remedy
when he assailed the orders before this Court.
His petition for review, docketed as G.R. No. 168775, was denied in a
Resolution[20]
dated
Furthermore,
it found no showing of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption on the part
of Judge Garfin in issuing the assailed orders to hold her administratively
liable. It stressed that no magistrate
is infallible and not every erroneous act of a judge in her judicial capacity
is subject to disciplinary action.
As to the
charge of abuse of authority against Atty. Mampo and Bolivar, the OCA found the
same to be without basis. It was Atty. Mampo’s ministerial duty to issue the
Writ pursuant to Judge Garfin’s
Other than the bare allegation that he
“forcibly and tremendously (sic)
executed” the writ of execution dated July 15, 2005 and that he demolished a
portion of complainant’s property when the only subject of the writ of
execution was possession of the property, complainant miserably failed to offer
competent evidence that would overcome the presumption enjoyed by respondent
that he regularly performed her [sic] duty.
Besides, there is no truth to complainant’s claim that the subject writ
of execution was only possession of the property as it is very clear from the
dispositive portion of the judgment that [sic] was executed that the structure
introduced by the complainant is likewise ordered demolished by the court.[22]
As to Atty.
Mampo’s prayer that complainant be required to explain the filing of a clearly
unfounded complaint against her, the OCA found the same justifiable under this
Court’s Resolution[23]
prescribing measures to protect members of the Judiciary from baseless and
unfounded administrative complaints considering that complainant is a lawyer
who has the sworn duty to support meritorious causes only. The OCA further noted it too cunning of
complainant to present only the facts that would favor his complaint and
withhold those that would help in the fair resolution of the case.
Hence, the OCA submitted the
following recommendation:
Respectfully submitted for the consideration
of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative
complaint against the respondents be DISMISSED
for lack of merit and that complainant Tirso P. Mariano be required to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be held in
contempt of court for filing a clearly baseless and unfounded administrative
complaint.[24]
We adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA with
some modifications as regards Atty.
Mampo’s prayer that complainant be required to show cause why he should not be
held in contempt of court.
Time and
again, we have ruled that the acts of a judge pertaining to his judicial
functions are not subject to disciplinary action unless they are tainted with
fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith.[25] These, however, are absent in this case. The
assailed acts of Judge Garfin being judicial in nature may not be the proper
subject of an administrative complaint. 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.[26]
Furthermore, this Court denied on 14 September 2005 complainant’s
petition for review assailing Judge Garfin’s orders for want of “any special
and important reason to warrant the exercise by this Court of its judicial
discretion to grant the petition pursuant to Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules”[27]
and denied his motion for reconsideration with finality on 14 December 2005,
“no compelling reason having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration
sought.”[28] Thus, the charges of grave abuse of judicial
discretion and gross ignorance of the law against Judge Garfin have no leg to
stand on.
Neither will the complaint prosper
against Atty. Mampo and Bolivar.
There is clearly nothing irregular
with Atty. Mampo’s issuance of the Writ.
The function of ordering the execution of a judgment devolves upon the
judge whereas another person, viz.,
the clerk of court can perform the act of issuing the writ of execution. As the rule now stands, the clerk of court
may, under the direction of the court or judge, make out and sign all writs and
processes issuing from the court. When Judge Garfin issued an order granting
the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and directing the issuance of the
Writ, Atty. Mampo was left with no choice but to issue the Writ as directed, it
being a ministerial duty on her part as provided in the Manual for Clerks of
Court[29]
and in accordance with Section 4, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court. Complainant even admits this in his
complaint, thus:
Obviously,
the issuance of the Writ of Execution by the Branch Clerk of Court dated
We likewise find no irregularity in
Bolivar’s implementation of the Writ as complainant failed to adduce an iota of
evidence in support of his allegations. In administrative proceedings, it
is axiomatic that the complainant must prove by substantial evidence, the
allegations in the complaint.[31] Since he failed in this regard, Bolivar
enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties.
We
cannot, however, sustain the OCA’s observation that Atty. Mampo’s plea that
complainant be required to explain the filing of a clearly unfounded complaint
against her finds justification under A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC. Said resolution
covers administrative complaints against justices and judges only. While it applies to Judge Garfin, Atty. Mampo
cannot avail of it.
Nevertheless,
we cannot let complainant go unscathed.
He has to explain the filing of what appears to be a clearly baseless
suit against respondents and the withholding from the Court of important facts
relative to the suit, i.e., that the Writ involved not only the possession
but also the demolition of the structures found in the premises, the
filing of plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration dated 11 February 2005 and the
basis therefor, as well as the basis for Judge Garfin’s 6 June 2005
Order granting the motion. Thus, the
concealment of the facts made it appear that Judge Garfin issued the order
injudiciously, and that Bolivar overstepped his bounds in implementing the
Writ. It may have degraded the
administration of justice and may amount to indirect contempt.[32]
As a lawyer and an officer of the court,
complainant owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court[33]
for he has a responsibility in the proper administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, the recommendation of
the OCA is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Judge Zeida Aurora B.
Garfin, Clerk of Court Jesusa I. Mampo and Sheriff IV Sebastian T. Bolivar is
DISMISSED for lack of merit. Complainant
Tirso P. Mariano is hereby required to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be held in
contempt of court for filing what appears to be a clearly baseless and
unfounded administrative complaint against herein respondents and for
withholding from this Court important information relative to the suit, within
ten (10) days from notice hereof.
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
[3]
[8]SEC. 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay
same. – If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall
issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the
defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by
the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the
rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed
from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the
appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if
any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall
deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and
occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate
determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of
each succeeding month or period. x x x
x x x
Should the defendant fail to make the payments above prescribed from
time to time, the appellate court, upon motion of the plaintiff, and upon proof
of such failure, shall order the execution of the judgment appealed from with
respect to the restoration of possession, but such execution shall not be a
bar to the appeal taking its course until the final disposition thereof on the
merits.
x x x x [emphasis supplied].
SEC. 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of
Appeals or Supreme Court. – The
judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be immediately
executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.
[11]SEC. 6. Execution by motion or by
independent action. – A final and executory judgment or order may be
executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it
is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by
action. The revived judgment may also be
enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and
thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.
[12]SEC. 2. Discretionary
execution. —Execution of
a judgment or final order pending appeal. – On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the
adverse party filed in the trial court, while it has jurisdiction over the case
and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal as
the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in
its discretion, order execution of judgment or final order even before the
expiration of the period to appeal.
[15]SEC. 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into
effect. – When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial
officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it
into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to
be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed
out by law or by these Rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be
adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules.
[17]SEC. 4. Issuance by clerk of process. – The clerk
of a superior court shall issue under the seal of the court all ordinary writs
and process incident to pending cases, the issuance of which does not involve
the exercise of functions appertaining to the court or judge only; and may,
under the direction of the court or judge, make out and sign letters of
administration, appointments of guardians, trustees and receivers, and all
writs and process issuing from the court.
[19]
[23]A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC, entitled “Resolution Prescribing
Measures to Protect Members of the Judiciary From Baseless and Unfounded
Administrative Complaints,” which took effect on
[25]Martin v. Judge Guerrero, 375 Phil. 584, 593 (1999).
[26]Atty. Hilario v. Hon. Ocampo III, 422 Phil. 593, 606 (2001) citing Santos
v. Orlino, Adm. Mat. No. RTJ-98-1418, 296 SCRA 101,