A.M. No. RTJ-00-1550 - Almendra vs. Asis

Antonio T. Almendra filed three separate administrative complaints against Judge Enrique C. Asis, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Abuyog, Leyte.
The charges leveled include allegations of partiality, gross ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The first underlying case involved an action for quieting of title filed on December 2, 1965, by Gaudencio Almendra, which concerned several parcels of land (Lot Nos. 4729, 4730, 4731, 4732, 4734) in Barrio Paguite, Abuyog, Leyte.
After due trial, on October 8, 1974, the trial court declared Gaudencio Almendra and defendants Francisco, Vicente, and Antonio Almendra as co-owners of the land, also ordering Gaudencio Almendra (who had sold one lot) to compensate the co-owners.
The case was appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on September 30, 1982, and a petition for certiorari filed by Gaudencio was later denied by the Supreme Court on July 20, 1983.
Subsequently, after remanding the case for execution of judgment, Antonio Almendra took possession of a portion of Lot Nos. 4729 and 4731. Later, Thelma and Arthur Almendra (legitimate children of Gaudencio) initiated a new action involving quieting of title with damages over the same lots.
On March 29, 1996, Judge Asis, in Civil Case No. 214, declared Thelma and Arthur Almendra the rightful owners of Lot Nos. 4729 and 4731 and delineated the division among the co-owners in a subsequent Civil Case No. 214 ruling.

Complainant Antonio Almendra asserted that Judge Asis’s decision in the later case (Civil Case No. 214) grossly violated the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals rendered on September 30, 1982 concerning the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
He contended that the judge’s act amounted to manifest partiality, undue injury, and inexcusable negligence by failing to observe the doctrine of res judicata and disobeying higher court rulings.
Judge Asis, in his comment dated May 26, 1997, maintained that his decision in Civil Case No. 214 merely specified the division of the property and implemented the earlier decision (Civil Case No. 3773), also stating it favored the complainant by awarding him a larger and more productive portion of the land.

Additional Complaints on Issuance of Writ of Possession and Dismissal in Libel Case

On June 26, 1997, the complainant filed a second administrative complaint charging ignorance of the law on the part of Judge Asis for manifest bias in Civil Case No. 252, where he granted a writ of possession to Refugia Dictado.

The issue in Civil Case No. 252 involved an action for recovery of property, inventory, and accounting of three parcels of land.
Complainant argued that the writ of possession was issued without legal basis, as the remedy sought by the plaintiffs was not provided for under the Rules of Court.
The judge defended his decision by noting that the complainant did not possess any right to the subject property, having previously admitted that Refugia Dictado was the owner.

On August 1, 1997, the complainant filed a third administrative complaint regarding his complaint for libel filed on March 21, 1996 against retired fiscal Eleodoro Alvero.

The corresponding criminal information led to the issuance of a warrant of arrest which was subsequently dismissed by Judge Asis for lack of probable cause.
The complainant contended that the judge’s dismissal of the libel case was improper, arguing that nullification of the warrant of arrest would have been the appropriate judicial act instead of dismissing the case in its entirety.

On June 14, 1999, the case was referred to Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando for investigation, who, on October 12, 1999, submitted a report recommending that Judge Asis be held liable for serious inefficiency for rendering a judgment in Civil Case No. 214 in spite of the existence of a final decision from the Court of Appeals.
The report stressed that the decision in Civil Case No. 214 was contrary to the doctrine of res judicata and disobeyed the fundamental rule barring re-litigation of issues already settled by a final and executory decision of a higher court.

Whether Judge Asis, in rendering the decision in Civil Case No. 214, violated the doctrine of res judicata and, consequently, the finality of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Whether the issues, parties, and cause of action were identical to those in the prior case (Civil Case No. 3773) and thus barred from re-litigation.
Whether a judge is permitted to amend or vary a decision that has already reached finality by a higher court.

Whether the issuance of the writ of possession in Civil Case No. 252 was legally justifiable.

Whether the order for the issuance of the writ of possession constituted an exercise of judicial discretion or amounted to gross ignorance of the law.
Whether the complainant suffered unjust injury as a consequence of this writ being ordered despite the applicable rules.

Whether the dismissal of the libel information against the retired fiscal was handled properly by Judge Asis.

Whether dismissing the information for lack of probable cause, based on the prosecutor’s motion, fell within the judge’s proper judicial functions.
Whether this dismissal indicates manifest bias or partiality towards the complainant.

Whether the conduct of Judge Asis, as evidenced by his actions across the three administrative complaints, demonstrates bad faith, malice, or inefficiency sufficient to warrant administrative sanctions.