G.R. No. L-47772 - Tugade vs. Court of Appeals

Veronica Gonzales filed an administrative complaint against Judge Lucas P. Bersamin of Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City.
The complaint charged the judge with grave misconduct, including:

In Criminal Case No. 1565-M-88 (People v. Zoilo Cruz and Rosalinda Aldeguer Cruz), the accused were ordered to pay jointly and severally P600,000.00 to Veronica Gonzales and Danilo Gonzales.
In Civil Case No. Q-91-10081 (Spouses Danilo Gonzales and Veronica Gonzales v. Zoilo Cruz and Rosalinda Aldeguer Cruz), the judgment required the accused to pay P3,700,000.00.
A writ of preliminary attachment was issued against the real property of the accused, and two notices of levy were provisionally registered:

TCT No. 319410 was in the process of reconstitution.
On December 3, 1991, a new title (TCT No. RT-48658 (319410)) was issued in the name of Zoilo Cruz and Rosalinda Aldeguer Cruz.

Spouses Gina Chan and Salvador Chan, having purchased the property via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 21, 1991, filed Civil Case No. Q-94-21444 on August 23, 1994.
The provisional registration of the deed of sale (April 1, 1991) preceded the registration of the notices of levy.
Annotations of both the deed of sale and the notices of levy were present on the reconstituted title, and subsequently, a new title (TCT No. 50572) was issued in favor of spouses Chan with these annotations carried over.

Spouses Chan argued that since the deed of sale was registered before the notices of levy, those notices should not have been transferred to the new title, as the property was no longer owned by the original titleholders at the time the levy was registered.
The Register of Deeds defended his action as ministerial, emphasizing it was his duty to transfer annotations from the reconstituted title to the new title.
Respondent judge rendered a decision ordering the cancellation of the annotations of the notices of levy on TCT No. 50572 on October 13, 1994.

Complainant alleged that the judge acted with inordinate haste in issuing both the judgment and interlocutory orders.
The complaint charged that the judge favored the spouses Chan, thereby prejudicing the interests of the complainant.
It was further alleged that the judge failed to notify and implead the complainant—despite her adverse interest reflected by the annotated notices of levy—thus breaching the due process obligations.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit, arguing:

The complainant's provisional registration of the levy came after the deed of sale was registered, making her a later registrant without indispensable party status.
The duty to notify, if any, fell on the Register of Deeds, not the judge.

Despite these arguments, evidence disclosed that the cancellation of annotations had been effected without giving notice to all parties in interest, contravening the requirements of P.D. No. 1529 (A108).

Whether Judge Bersamin committed grave misconduct in rendering an unjust judgment and unjust interlocutory orders with inordinate haste in the cancellation of annotated notices of levy.
Whether the judge failed in his duty by not notifying and impleading the complainant, who had an adverse interest in the subject property, thereby infringing on due process.
Whether the complainant should have been considered an indispensable party in Civil Case No. Q-94-21444, given her recorded interest through the annotated notices of levy.
Whether the procedural requirements under P.D. No. 1529 (A108) were violated by not giving notice to all parties in interest before ordering the cancellation of the annotations.