No room for error

This is another case of a Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Judge who is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure because he applied the wrong rule.

The Judge here rendered a decision dated June 22, 2004 in an ejectment case filed by a women’s club (plaintiff) against the occupant of the ground floor of its premises in Ermita Manila (defendant) ordering the latter to vacate said premises, surrender possession thereof to plaintiff and pay rentals in arrears.

On July 12, 2004, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Immediate Execution of the aforesaid decision. Then the following day, the defendant filed a Notice of Appeal appealing said decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On July 14, the Judge issued an order to elevate the records of the case to the RTC for appropriate proceedings and disposition, considering that the appeal had been reasonably filed. In the same order, the Judge ruled that in view of the appeal, no more action can be taken on the plaintiff’s motion for execution thus virtually denying it.

When the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, the Judge also denied the same on July 28, 2004, citing the same reason that he had already given due course to the defendant’s appeal and could no longer act on the motion for reconsideration since the court had already lost jurisdiction over the case, apparently relying on Section 9, Rule 41 which provides that in appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon perfection of the appeal in due time.

This prompted the president and executive director of the plaintiff (Complainants) to file an administrative complaint against the Judge for gross ignorance of the law, disregard of the rule, dereliction of duty, knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order and violation of the Code of Conduct for Government Officials. Complainants alleged that the Judge’s denial of their motions had rendered their victory inutile and had unfairly deprived the plaintiff of the possession of the premises. They averred that the Judge apparently did not know that the appeal in ejectment cases is not perfected by the mere filing of the notice of appeal as in ordinary actions but also by filing a supersedeas bond executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages and cost accruing down to the time of judgment appealed from, as provided in Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

In response, the Judge said that he issued the orders in good faith and without malice after a fair and impartial evaluation of the facts relying on the Rule that once he had given due course to the defendant’s notice of appeal, his court lost jurisdiction over the case. So if ever he had committed lapses in issuing the orders it should be considered as error of judgment on his part. Was the Judge correct?

No. His excuse that he had lost jurisdiction over the case by virtue of defendant’s appeal is unacceptable in the light of the clear provisions of Rule 70 Section 19 that the execution of the decision in ejectment cases could not be stayed by the mere taking of the appeal. Only the filing of sufficient supersedeas bond and the deposit with the appellate court of the amount of rent due from time to time coupled with the perfection of the appeal could stay the execution. The Judge could not also justify his omission to act on the motion for execution by claiming good faith or absence of malice and that it is a mere error in judgment. A rule as clear and explicit as Section 19, Rule 70 could not be misread or misapplied, but should be implemented without evasion or hesitation. Non-compliance can be justified only when there is yet an unsettled doubt on the meaning and applicability of a rule or legal provision. It is not so in this case.

But even if gross ignorance of the law is a serious offense, it has not been shown that fraud, dishonesty, or a corrupt motive attended the Judge’s omission to act. So he should only be fined P5,000 with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely (Ferrer andArandez vs. Rabaca, A.M. MTJ-05-1580, October 6, 2010).

* * *

E-mail at:[email protected]