Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-96-1105)
Facts:
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Judge Federico A. Llanes, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-96-1105, January 14, 1997, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), filed an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court against respondent Judge Federico A. Llanes, Jr., then Presiding Judge of MTCC, Branch I, Laoag City, charging him with gross ignorance of the law, gross neglect of duty and acts prejudicial to the interest of the Government arising from his official actuations in Civil Case No. 2551 (an action for unlawful detainer) originally filed by DBP against Julio Agcaoili on April 14, 1992.
Acting Presiding Judge Manuelito A. Cid rendered judgment in favor of DBP on October 14, 1993. DBP moved for execution and a writ of execution was issued on January 21, 1994; however, the writ was not enforced for more than six months despite repeated motions. A purported notice of appeal and related pleadings by defendant’s counsel were mailed but — because the envelope was misaddressed to a non-existent "Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Laoag City" — were returned and ultimately received by the MTCC only on November 25, 1993. The Court record shows the decision was received by defendant on October 22, 1993, making the November 25 filing clearly late; additionally, no timely supersedeas bond or perfecting requisites were filed.
DBP also filed a separate administrative complaint against the MTCC clerk and the deputy sheriff for unreasonable delay in enforcing the writ; an investigating judge dismissed that complaint after respondent admitted in an indorsement (October 17, 1994) that he had directed the clerk to hold execution in abeyance while he ordered an inventory of pending cases. After respondent returned to station in January 1994, he issued several orders (March 10, April 18, July 14, August 11–18, October 11, March 15, 1995) that repeatedly reopened or set incidents for hearing, ordered verification as to timely filing of purported motions (noting alleged mail filings), and ultimately — on May 18, 1995 — declared a mistrial, set aside all prior proceedings, and ordered the inclusion of additional parties for a new trial, invoking the court’s inherent power (citing Section 5(g), Rule 135, Revised Rules of Court).
DBP lodged an administrative complaint with the Court alleging the May 18, 1995 order amounted to gross ignorance of the law and neglect of duty because the judgment had already become final and executory. Respondent filed comments (March 8, 1996), DBP replied (May 3, 1996), and respondent filed a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Federico A. Llanes, Jr. commit gross ignorance of the law, gross neglect of duty, or acts prejudicial to the interest of the Government by holding in abeyance enforcement and later declaring a mistrial and setting aside proceedings in Civil Case No. 2551 despite an allegedly executory judgment?
- If respondent is administratively liable...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)