Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2075)
Facts:
Atty. Ubaldino A. Lacuro m v. Judge Juanita C. Tienzo, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2075 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2623-RTJ), October 09, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Atty. Ubaldino A. Lacurom filed an administrative complaint against Judge Juanita C. Tienzo, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Cabanatuan City, charging gross ignorance of the law or procedure in connection with two separate matters: (1) the issuance of a writ of replevin in Civil Case No. 4971 (Roy G. Claudio and Michael Allan Parungao v. Carlos Dy and John Doe) and (2) a short/minute decision (promulgated July 21, 2005) in appealed Civil Case No. 4884 (an unlawful detainer appeal from MTCC Branch 3, Cabanatuan City).
As to Civil Case No. 4971, complainant alleged that respondent should not have issued the writ of replevin because plaintiff Claudio had not proved ownership or entitlement to possession (Claudio allegedly admitted sale and subsequent conveyances) and because the sheriff retained the vehicle for more than five days without proper disposition despite a third‑party claim; respondent purportedly granted plaintiffs an extension and then released the vehicle without requiring the indemnity bond, violating Rule 60, Sections 2(a), 6 and 7.
As to appealed Civil Case No. 4884, complainant asserted that respondent's decision failed to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law as required by Article VIII, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, and that the minute decision was unbefitting of an RTC judge.
Respondent opposed the complaint, arguing lack of legal personality/locus standi (complainant was not the real party in interest and did not attach a Special Power of Attorney), that the challenged acts were judicial in nature and presumed regularly performed, and that any error should be corrected by judicial remedies (appeal or certiorari), not by administrative proceedings. Respondent further invoked compliance with the Interim Rules and Guidelines of B.P. Blg. 129 and this Court’s ruling in Francisco v. Permskul regarding memorandum decisions.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the complaint partly meritorious: it treated the replevin-related allegation as a judicial question (properly corrected by judicial remedies) and concluded the complainant lacked standing to assail the appealed decision; however, the OCA found that respondent’s minute decision violated the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the administrative complaint a proper remedy to challenge respondent judge’s issuance of the writ of replevin in Civil Case No. 4971, or is the matter judicial in nature and cognizable only by judicial remedies?
- Did respondent judge’s minute decision in Civil Case No. 4884 violate Article VIII, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, and if so, does that violation constitute gross ignorance of th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)