Facts:

• Administrative complaints were filed against Presiding Judge Gil G. Bollozos of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 21 in Cagayan De Oro City, Misamis Oriental.
• The complaints were filed by complainant Oscar C. Rizalado and complainants Othello C. Guzman, Ricardo Guzman, Mario C. Guzman Sr., and Rosario Guzman Rizalado.
• The complaints alleged undue delay, partiality, and gross ignorance of the rules in the disposition of a case.
• The complaints are related to G.R. No. 188427, entitled "Cynthia G. Espano, et al. v. Dr. Othelo Ch. Guzman, et al.," where the Court affirmed the Decision and Resolution rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80347-MIN.
• The case originated from Civil Case No. 92-368 and Civil Case No. 92-409, which were resolved by the RTC on February 13, 2003.
• The Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 188427 became final and executory on September 14, 2010.
• The complaints alleged that Judge Bollozos failed to act on the motion for execution within a considerable amount of time and issued orders inconsistent with the CA Decision.
• Complainants also claimed that Judge Bollozos protected the opposing party's counsel and refused to hold certain individuals in contempt of court.
• They further alleged that Judge Bollozos delayed the execution of the judgment and failed to update rental payments and release them from the Office of the Clerk of Court.
• Judge Bollozos explained that he resolved the motion for execution and gave the judgment defendants an opportunity to comment.
• He stated that there were legal issues to be resolved before he could order the release of the monies and compel the lessees to pay their unpaid rentals.
• He denied the allegations of bias and partiality and argued that the delay in the execution of the judgment was caused by the multiple motions filed by the complainants' counsels.
• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the complaints against Judge Bollozos for lack of merit and for raising issues that are judicial in nature.
• The OCA also recommended finding Rizalado guilty of contempt of court and imposing a fine of P20,000.00.
• The Court concurred with the OCA's findings and dismissed the complaints against Judge Bollozos.
• The Court found that the charges of bias and partiality were not substantiated and that complainants failed to avail themselves of the appropriate judicial remedies.
• The Court also found Rizalado guilty of contempt of court and increased the fine to P20,000.00, with a stern warning of more severe penalties for any repetition of the offense.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The complaints against Judge Bollozos are dismissed for lack of merit.
• Rizalado is found guilty of contempt of court and is fined P20,000.00, with a stern war...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court found that the charges of bias and partiality against Judge Bollozos were not substantiated. The complainants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations.
• The Court also noted that the complainants failed to avail themselves of the appropriate judicial...continue reading