Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-01-1355)
Facts:
This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Regino and Conceso Barbarona against Judge Alejandro T. Canda, the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte. The complaint was lodged on April 20, 2001, alleging that the respondent judge knowingly rendered an unjust judgment, exhibited ignorance of the law, demonstrated incompetence, committed grave abuse of discretion, and engaged in grave misconduct. The complainants, who are brothers, were involved in a legal dispute concerning a case for quieting of title and damages, designated as Civil Case No. 356, where their father, Hermogenes Barbarona, was a defendant. The plaintiff, Gerardo Magallanes, claimed ownership of two parcels of land, asserting that he purchased them from Felipa R. Goria, who assured him that the land was free from tenants. However, the Barbaronas contested this claim, asserting their rights over the bamboo thickets on the land. They filed a motio...
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-01-1355)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Complainants: Regino and Conceso Barbarona (brothers).
- Respondent: Judge Alejandro T. Canda, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte.
Background of the Case:
- Gerardo Magallanes filed a case for quieting of title and damages (Civil Case No. 356) against Conceso Barbarona and their father, Hermogenes Barbarona.
- Magallanes claimed ownership of two parcels of land in Barrio Pias, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, registered under TCT Nos. T-44256 and T-44257.
- Magallanes alleged that the Barbaronas prevented him from cutting bamboo thickets on the land, claiming ownership of the bamboos.
- The Barbaronas moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the case involved a landlord-tenant relationship and was incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Court Proceedings:
- Respondent Judge Canda denied the motion to dismiss, declaring the Barbaronas in default due to the lack of proof of service on their motion.
- Magallanes presented his evidence ex parte, and Judge Canda ruled in his favor, declaring Magallanes' titles clear and ordering the Barbaronas to pay damages.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed Judge Canda's decision, and a writ of execution was issued, leading to the sale of a parcel of land owned by Hermogenes Barbarona to satisfy the damages.
Administrative Complaint:
- The Barbaronas filed an administrative complaint against Judge Canda, alleging:
- Ignorance of the law for failing to determine if a tenancy relationship existed.
- Connivance with Magallanes to eject the Barbaronas from their land.
- Incompetence and inefficiency in handling cases.
- Grave misconduct for engaging in a copra and trucking business.
- Improper notarization of private documents and charging exorbitant fees.
Respondent Judge's Defense:
- Judge Canda denied the allegations, stating that the motion to dismiss was defective, and he had no basis to refer the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
- He denied engaging in business or neglecting his judicial duties.
- He admitted notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale but claimed it was an isolated incident due to the lack of available notaries in the area.
Issue:
- Whether Judge Canda failed to determine the existence of a tenancy relationship, as required by law.
- Whether Judge Canda connived with Magallanes to eject the Barbaronas from their land.
- Whether Judge Canda was incompetent and inefficient in handling cases.
- Whether Judge Canda engaged in a copra and trucking business, neglecting his judicial duties.
- Whether Judge Canda improperly notarized private documents and charged exorbitant fees.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found Judge Alejandro T. Canda guilty of violating Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 for improperly notarizing a private document. He was fined P1,000.00 and warned against repeating such acts. The other charges against him were dismissed for lack of evidence.