[OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2045-RTJ. March 29, 2006]
HEIRS OF VITALIANO LAUDIZA, REPRESENTED BY ROSA L. MEDINA versus JUDGE
Second Division
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court
dated MAR.
29, 2006
OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2045-RTJ (Heirs
of Vitaliano Laudiza, represented
by Rosa L. Medina versus Judge Novato T. Cajigal, RTC, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite.)
Before the Court is a sworn COMPLAINT filed by the heirs of Vitaliano Laudiza through their
attorney-in-fact Rosa L. Medina charging Judge Novato T. Cajigal, RTC, Branch
19, Bacoor, Cavite of violation
of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Bias/Impartiality) and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, relative to the latter's disposition of Civil Case No. BCV-90-14, an
action for quieting of title, entitled The
Heirs of Vitaliano Laudiza
and Enrique Laudiza, as represented by Rosa L.
Medina, in her capacity as attorney-in-fact, Plaintiffs versus The Heirs of
Cesar Casal, CRS Realty and Development Corporation and
the Register of Deeds of Cavite, Defendants; Bennie Cuason, Intervenor.
The complaint alleged that respondent actively participated in the
out-of-court conference among the parties in said case and exhorted the
complainants to enter into a compromise agreement with the intervenor for an
amount which is a mere fraction of the total value of the disputed property, and
that the respondent was most insistent that the parties enter a compromise
agreement despite the vigorous objection of the complainants, allegedly because
the respondent expects to get P3,000,000.00 from the intervenor. Apart from the prayer for disciplinary action,
complainants also pray that the respondent be barred from handling the case and
for the transfer of its venue from Bacoor,
In his Comment, the respondent denied the charges, claiming that
it was the counsel for intervenor who manifested his client's offer to settle
the case, whereupon he (respondent) advised the parties to explore the
possibility of amicable settlement considering that the case has been pending
for so long in his sala. Respondent also alleged not having received
any amount from the intervenor relative to the same case. Finally, to erase any doubt as to his partiality,
respondent informed the Court that he had already inhibited himself from the
case.
In a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), dated
27 September 2004, complainants confirmed respondent's inhibition.
In a Memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the OCA recommended that
this administrative complaint be referred to an Associate Justice of the Court
of Appeals for investigation.
We note, however, that herein case has been superseded by the eventual
retirement of the respondent on June 20, 2005.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court
resolves to REQUIRE the complainants
to show cause why the instant administrative case should
not be dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic by respondent's
retirement from the Bench.
SO
ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI
YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Second Division