Title
Supreme Court
Tamondong vs. Pasal
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2017
Judge Pasal fined for undue delay in resolving a motion; administrative complaint dismissed as judicial errors require judicial remedies, not discipline.

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • An administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong against Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal of RTC Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 38.
    • The complaint stemmed from events linked to Special Civil Action No. 2013-184 involving Henmar Development Property, Inc. versus Abada’s heirs.
    • Abada’s heirs originally petitioned for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title, and Annulment of an Extrajudicial Settlement before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Opol, Misamis Oriental.
  • Chronology and Procedural Background
    • On June 21, 2012, Abada’s heirs initiated a case against Henmar Development Property, Inc. (Henmar) in Civil Case No. 2012-06-04.
    • Henmar, represented by Atty. Tamondong, filed an omnibus motion (Ad Cautelam) requesting dismissal of the complaint on several grounds:
      • Lack of jurisdiction over the person of Henmar due to improper service of summons.
      • Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (territorial issues) and/or improper venue.
      • Prescription and/or laches, based on the alleged lapse of time provided by the prescriptive period under the Civil Code.
    • The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) denied the motion to dismiss on March 26, 2013, and its subsequent Motion for Reconsideration on July 4, 2013.
    • Henmar resorted to a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and a Temporary Restraining Order in Special Civil Action No. 2013-184 before RTC Branch 38, which was raffled to Judge Pasal.
  • Judicial Resolution and Subsequent Complaint
    • On December 23, 2013, Judge Pasal issued a Resolution dismissing Henmar’s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition for lack of merit.
      • The Resolution covered points on the validity of service of summons, jurisdictional issues both personal and territorial, and the applicability of prescription.
      • Judge Pasal reasoned that:
        • The decision on service of summons was supported by existing jurisprudence permitting judicial discretion.
ii. The jurisdictional challenge relating to territorial boundaries was premised on historical facts (e.g., cadastral survey in 1933 prior to the creation of Opol). iii. The issue of prescription was moot because prescription (in an action for reconveyance based on fraud) begins only after the ouster in 2008, making the 2012 filing still timely.
  • Henmar filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution, which Judge Pasal, after submitting the motion for resolution on February 24, 2014, delayed for more than six months.
  • Atty. Tamondong later charged Judge Pasal with:
    • Gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence – based on his failure to dismiss the case on the grounds of improper service, territorial jurisdiction, and prescription.
    • Gross inefficiency and/or gross neglect of duty – due to his inaction and undue delay in resolving Henmar’s Motion for Reconsideration.
  • The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended:
    • Re-docketing the complaint as a regular administrative matter.
    • Imposing an administrative sanction on Judge Pasal by fining him Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) for undue delay.
    • Dismissing the charge of gross ignorance of the law against Judge Pasal for being inherently judicial in nature.
  • Additional Evidentiary and Legal Context
    • The Resolution and subsequent administrative complaint were supported by relevant jurisprudence indicating that:
      • Service of summons to corporations may be flexible, as seen in the evolution from the strict rule in E.B. Villarosa to the modified approach in BPI vs. Sps. Santiago.
      • Judicial remedies (such as motions for reconsideration or appeals) are the proper channels for redressing alleged errors in judicial discretion.
    • The issue of jurisdiction and territorial boundaries was not conclusively dispositive, as it awaited proper trial determination.
    • The prolonged resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration—113 days instead of the mandatory 30 days as prescribed under Rule 37, Section 4 of the Rules of Court—was a focal point in alleging administrative inefficiency.

Issues:

  • Judicial Nature of the Act
    • Does Judge Pasal’s dismissal of the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, rendered in his judicial capacity, fall within the ambit of an act that is immune from administrative discipline?
    • Is it proper to subject a judicial decision—allegedly based on established jurisprudence—to an administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law or incompetence?
  • Validity of Service and Jurisdictional Concerns
    • Was the service of summons upon Henmar valid under the applicable rules and jurisprudence?
    • Did the trial courts have proper personal and territorial jurisdiction, especially considering the location of the property and historical context of the cadastral survey?
  • Allegation of Prescription
    • Does the alleged delay in the filing of the complaint by Abada’s heirs (in relation to the prescribed period) provide sufficient grounds for dismissal, as argued by Atty. Tamondong?
  • Timeliness of Resolving Pending Motions
    • Does the unexplained delay in resolving the Motion for Reconsideration (beyond the 30-day reglementary period) amount to gross inefficiency and/or neglect of duty meriting administrative sanctions against Judge Pasal?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms