[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1799-MTJ.
JOSE AND
First Division
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court
dated
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1799-MTJ (Jose and
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator,
to wit:
Complainants allege that a complaint for ejectment, damages and attorney's
fees was filed by Fermin and Julieta
Gamus against them before the MCTC, Nabunturan,
docketed as Civil Case No. 347 (271). Judge
Pinggoy decided the case on
WHEREFORE, in the light of the prevailing jurisprudence and
established facts, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and
against defendants ordering the latter:
1. to vacate
2 to pay plaintiffs the
sum of Php 15,000.00 as reasonable Attorney's Fees and Php 5,000.00 by way of
moral damages; and
3. to pay the cost of Php
32.00.
The defendants' counterclaim is hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
The above-mentioned decision was appealed to RTC, Br. 3, Nabunturan,
Judge Pinggoy's issuance of the writ of execution (Annex
"B") on
Complainants allege that Judge Pinggoy should require the plaintiffs
to pay them the value of their improvements on the subject land, including the
necessary expenses incurred for the preservation of the subject land, pursuant
to Articles 448, 452 and 527 of the Civil Code before the writ of demolition
can be lawfully issued.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its 1st Indorsement dated 1 December 2005 directed Judge Pinggoy to
comment on the complaint and on why no disciplinary action should be taken
against him for violation of his professional responsibility as a lawyer.
In his
The issue on the legality of the writ of execution was already raised
by the complainants in their petition for certiorari filed before RTC, Br. 3,
Nabunturan which directed Judge Pinggoy to issue a special order of demolition
and the provincial sheriff to proceed with the enforcement of 25 March 2004
order. The
The issue of payment of indemnity was already passed upon by the Court
of Appeals in its
EVALUATION: The charge of gross ignorance of the law must fail,
[as] even complainants' Annex "B" discloses that Judge Pinggoy did not
strictly adhere to Section 8, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which specifically
required that the writ of execution shall state the dispositive part of the
decision. Judge Pin[g]goy, however, has
substantially complied with the mentioned rule of procedure considering that
there is a statement written on the assailed writ "see attached
decision." Contrary to the
complainants' contention, the assailed writ can be implemented by the sheriff
who must refer to the decision for its enforcement. In fact, on
It must be stressed that to constitute gross ignorance of the law,
it is not enough that the assailed order or ruling is contrary to existing law
or jurisprudence but, most importantly, the judge must be moved by bad faith,
fraud, dishonesty and corruption (Gabriel dela Paz vs. Judge Santos Adiong,
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1857,
Notably, the general aim to procedural law is to facilitate the application
of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing in mind that
procedural rules are created not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and
promote the administration of justice. The
strict application of the rules of procedure especially on technical matters,
which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be
avoided (Maunlad Savings and Loan Association vs. Court of Appeals, 346 SCRA
35; Abrajano vs. Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 68).
In view of the foregoing, this Office respectfully recommends the dismissal
of the instant complaint for lack of merit.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for consideration of
the Honorable Court the recommendation that the instant complaint against
respondent Judge David R. Pinggoy be DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
and finding the evaluation and
recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the
Court approves and adopts the same.
Unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty,
corruption, malice or ill will, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an
injustice, respondent judge may not be held administratively liable for gross
misconduct, ignorance of the law or incompetence of official acts or acts in
the exercise of judicial functions and duties particularly in the adjudication
of cases.[1]
ACCORDINGLY, the
administrative complaint against Judge David R. Pinggoy is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division