Facts:

In the administrative case A.M. No. RTJ-11-2265, Complainant Atty. Emmanuel R. Andamo filed a letter-complaint on August 26, 2008, against Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr., Clerk of Court Stanlee D. Calma, and Legal Researcher Diana G. Ruiz, all associated with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Tagaytay City. The crux of the complaint centered on alleged ignorance of the law, particularly regarding the delay and handling of four petitions for certificates of sale and several petitions for writs of possession related to extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings initiated by the Cavite Rural Banking Corporation (CRBC) against various mortgagors. Andamo lamented the lack of progress in these proceedings and claimed that Judge Larida erred by entertaining oppositions to the petitions without requiring the litigants to post the necessary bond as stipulated in Section 47 of Republic Act No. 8791. Furthermore, Andamo disputed an order dated July 10, 2008, in which the judge purportedly

...

Facts:

The Filing of the Administrative Complaint

• Complainant Atty. Emmanuel R. Andamo, counsel for Cavite Rural Banking Corporation (CRBC), filed a letter-complaint dated August 26, 2008, against:
• Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr.
• Clerk of Court Stanlee D. Calma
• Legal Researcher Diana G. Ruiz
• The complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Tagaytay City, charging the respondents with gross ignorance of the law in connection with extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.

Details of the Underlying Cases and Allegations

• The factual matrix involved two sets of petitions:
• Four petitions for the issuance of certificates of sale under Act No. 3135 (as amended), pertaining to foreclosure cases filed by CRBC with various mortgagors.
• Four ex-parte joint petitions for the issuance of writs of possession under the same Act.
• Specific allegations by the complainant included:
• Judge Larida, Jr. allegedly recognized the appearance and participation of Atty. Ireneo Anarna as lawyer for oppositors in certain foreclosure cases.
• He allegedly failed to require oppositors to submit the necessary guaranty bonds in accordance with Section 47 of Republic Act 8791.
• The issuance of an Order dated July 10, 2008, in one of the cases (TG-05-1141) was said to contravene Sections 7 and 8 of Act No. 3135 by denying the relief sought by CRBC.
• Court personnel (Clerk Calma and LR Ruiz) were reportedly accused of inaction in expediting the docketing of eight long-pending cases.

Respondents’ Defense and the Role of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

• The OCA summarized the complaint and the attachments, noting conflicting factual issues that precluded resolution solely based on the records presented.
• The OCA recommended that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative case and referred for further investigation by a Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA).
• A Notice and referral were made to CA Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier who subsequently conducted a detailed investigation.

Proceedings and Presentation of Evidence

• At the preliminary stages:
• Judge Larida, Jr. filed a Motion with Leave of Court to Admit Comment, disputing the allegation of delaying the foreclosure cases.
• Respondents Calma and LR Ruiz filed a Joint Comment and later a Joint Affidavit admitting that earlier orders (notably the Order of March 17, 2004 by then Judge Reuben Dela Cruz) had already determined the disposition of the extra-judicial foreclosure petitions.
• During the hearing:
• Both parties submitted affidavits, documentary evidence, and status reports.
• Complainant relied on his letter-complaint as his testimony while Judge Larida, Jr. and the other respondents provided extensive documentary evidence to support their compliance with legal requirements.

Nature of the Administrative Case

• The complaint centered on alleged acts and omissions concerning:
• The ministerial duty to issue writs of possession in foreclosure proceedings.
• The proper implementation of statutory requirements under Act No. 3135 and related jurisprudence.
• Ultimately, the complainant sought to have the respondents held liable for “gross ignorance of the law” and to prompt corrective measures through administrative sanctions.

Issue:

Whether Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr. committed gross ignorance of the law by:

• Recognizing the appearance of oppositor counsel contrary to established procedural requirements.
• Failing to impose the required guaranty bonds under Section 47 of Republic Act 8791 in the foreclosure proceedings.
• Whether the actions (or omissions) of the Clerk of Court Stanlee D. Calma and Legal Researcher Diana G. Ruiz in managing the docket and expediting the pending petitions constituted administrative lapses or were merely procedural.
• Whether the administrative complaint was the proper remedy for addressing alleged judicial errors, given that alternative judicial remedies (such as motions for reconsideration or appeals) are available.
• Whether the ministerial nature of issuing writs of possession under Act No. 3135 eliminates any discretion on the part of the judge, thus negating the complainant’s allegations.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)