G.R. No. 113811 - Himagan vs. People

Spouses Jesus V. Jacinto and Nenita C. Jacinto filed a Complaint on March 22, 2002.
Judge Placido V. Vallarta, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Gapan, was named Respondent and was charged with gross negligence, gross ignorance of the law, issuance of an unjust interlocutory order, and vulgar and unbecoming conduct.

Complainants alleged that on September 4, 2001 respondent issued an Order for a Writ of Replevin in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Gaudencio and Carina Magundayao regarding an Isuzu Cargo Truck sold to the complainants on September 13, 1999.
Complainants claimed the Writ of Replevin should not have been ordered because of terms in the Deed of Conditional Sale and asserted they had not violated such agreements.

Complainants alleged the Sheriff recovered the truck on September 7, 2001 and that they sought to settle matters amicably at respondent's office, where respondent allegedly spoke rudely and made the following statements: "Wala akong pakialam diyan sa pera ninyo kung gusto ninyo hanapin ninyo ang inyong kalaban" and "Eh, wala pala edi hanapin ninyo," and "humanap ka ng abogado mo na makatutulong sa iyo, dagdag ka pa sa problema ko."
Complainants alleged respondent showed palpable impatience, rudeness, indifference and issued other discourteous remarks, including upon ordering release of the vehicle: "O ngayong alam ninyo na mali ang aking ginawa hindi ninyo ako idemanda. Idemanda ninyo pag makita ninyo ang inyong hinahanap."
Complainants asserted repeated failures of plaintiff's counsel to appear at scheduled hearings (September 18; September 23; October 9; October 23; November 6; November 27, 2001) and alleged respondent permitted repeated postponements and ex parte actions or instructions to settle outside court.
Complainants alleged defects in the replevin bonds, including certifications from the Supreme Court dated September 19 and November 26, 2001 indicating bonding companies were not authorized to do business with MTC-Gapan; they alleged respondent nevertheless allowed proceedings to continue and issued orders approving clearances dated December 21, 2001.

On November 7, 2001 complainants' counsel filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Release Motor Vehicle; respondent ordered release on the same date but confronted complainants as alleged above.
On December 21, 2001 Sheriff Ernesto Mendoza replevined the vehicle from complainants' home; complainants voluntarily surrendered the vehicle the following day to the Sheriff and to the Clerk of Court.
Complainants alleged respondent did not resolve Motion for Reconsideration and Opposition/Comment timely and that an unsigned Order dated November 27, 2001 reflected failure to act; they filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Quash on January 3, 2002; respondent failed to appear on January 15, 2002.

Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. referred the Complaint to respondent on April 15, 2002 and directed respondent to file ...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether respondent committed gross ignorance of the law, gross negligence, or issued an unjust interlocutory order

Whether the facts alleged and proofs submitted established an error that was gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, sufficient for administrative liability for gross ignorance or gross negligence.
Whether issuance of the Writ of Replevin constituted an unjust interlocutory order warranting administrative sanction.

Whether respondent's alleged utterances, impatience, rudeness, and lack of concern amounted to vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Rule 140, Section 1...(Subscriber-Only)