Case Digest (A.M. No. 08-1982-MTJ)
Facts:
The case at hand involves Daniel P. Almaden, Jr. as the complainant against Hon. Victorio L. Galapon, Jr., the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Dulag, Leyte. The administrative complaint is rooted in Civil Case No. 66 for ejectment with damages, filed by Cesario Permejo against several defendants, including the late Lolita Almaden, who was survived by her minor children. The MTC of Tolosa, Leyte, presided over by Judge Eriberto Cuenza, appointed Almaden as guardian ad-litem for the minors on August 16, 1991, after the death of Lolita Almaden. Following Judge Cuenza's retirement, Judge Paulino Cabello took over the case and rendered a decision on August 21, 1992, favoring the plaintiff and ordering the defendants to vacate the property in question. This decision became final and executory, leading the plaintiff to file a motion for execution. After Judge Mario Nicolasora voluntarily inhibited himself from the case, Executive Judge Leonilo B. Apita desi...
Case Digest (A.M. No. 08-1982-MTJ)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- The administrative case arose from Civil Case No. 66, an ejectment suit filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tolosa, Leyte, entitled "Cesario Permejo v. Doring AAales, et al."
- One of the defendants, Lolita Almaden, died during the pendency of the case, leaving behind minor children. Complainant Daniel P. Almaden, Jr. was appointed as their guardian ad-litem on August 16, 1991.
Judicial Proceedings
- Judge Paulino Cabello took over the case after the retirement of Judge Eriberto Cuenza. On August 21, 1992, Judge Cabello ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate the land.
- The decision became final and executory, and a motion for execution was filed. Judge Mario Nicolasora, the incumbent MTC Judge, voluntarily inhibited himself, leading to the designation of Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. to handle the case.
Execution and Demolition
- On July 26, 2002, Judge Galapon granted the motion for execution, and a writ of execution was issued on August 14, 2002. The writ was returned unsatisfied, prompting the plaintiff to file a motion for a writ of demolition, which was granted on November 25, 2002.
Administrative Complaint
- On April 23, 2003, Almaden filed an administrative complaint against Judge Galapon and Sheriff Jose A. Portillo, alleging that his house was demolished and building materials worth over P200,000.00 were taken. He claimed his house was on a government lot and not part of the ejectment suit.
- The complaint was dismissed on July 27, 2005, for lack of merit.
Second Administrative Complaint
- On March 7, 2007, Almaden filed another complaint against Judge Galapon, accusing him of usurpation of authority, serious misconduct, issuing unjust orders, ignorance of the law, and grave abuse of authority. This complaint was deemed a rehash of the previous one.
Court’s Response
- On April 16, 2008, the Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and directed Almaden to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of court for filing a malicious complaint under A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC.
- Almaden failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, leading to the recommendation of a P2,000.00 fine by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
Issue:
- Whether Judge Galapon committed usurpation of authority, serious misconduct, or grave abuse of authority in issuing the writ of execution and demolition.
- Whether Almaden’s administrative complaint was baseless and intended to harass Judge Galapon.
- Whether Almaden should be held in contempt of court for filing a malicious complaint.
Ruling:
- The Court dismissed Almaden’s complaint for lack of merit and found him guilty of contempt of court. He was ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00.
Ratio:
- Presumption of Regularity: In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. Almaden failed to substantiate his claims with evidence, and bare allegations cannot overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
- Judicial Discretion: Judge Galapon acted within his discretionary powers as a judge. There was no evidence of fraud, dishonesty, or bad faith in his issuance of the writs.
- Protection of Judiciary: The Court will protect judges and court personnel from unfounded and baseless complaints that disrupt the administration of justice. However, it will also impose discipline when warranted.
- Contempt of Court: Filing malicious and baseless complaints constitutes contempt of court, especially when the complainant fails to justify their actions.