Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-19-1925)
Facts:
Madeline Tan‑Yap v. Hon. Hannibal R. Patricio, A.M. No. MTJ‑19‑1925 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 17‑2937‑MTJ), June 03, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.This administrative complaint arose from Civil Case No. V‑09‑11 (RTC, Capiz) originally filed by Nemesio Tan (father of complainant Madeline Tan‑Yap) against Robenson Benigla. The parties entered into a court‑approved Compromise Agreement providing, among other things, for a relocation (boundary) survey of Lots 703 and 706, with costs borne pro rata, cooperation in the survey, and execution consequences should any party fail to comply. After a private survey located a cockpit within Lot 706, Benigla challenged the surveyor’s qualifications and sought designation of a DENR surveyor; the RTC denied that motion and the CA did not issue a temporary restraining order on Benigla’s certiorari petition.
Following denial, the RTC granted a Motion for Execution; a Writ of Execution was issued February 6, 2015 and served on Benigla on February 26, 2015. On March 10, 2015, Sheriff IV Romeo C. Alvarez, Jr. and Process Server Edgar Dellava proceeded to implement the writ but were confronted at the property by respondent Judge Hannibal R. Patricio, who declared he and his wife Ruby Benigla Patricio owned adjoining Lot 707 (not impleaded), objected to the sketch plan, warned that “something untoward might happen” if execution continued, and thereby caused the sheriff and his men to leave amid sightings of motorcycle‑riding men on the premises.
Thereafter Ruby filed a Motion to Intervene and Opposition to the Implementation of the Writ of Execution (dated March 16, 2015) which bore the respondent judge’s signature above the printed legend “JUDGE HANNIBAL R. PATRICIO.” The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated March 24, 2015. Complainant charged respondent with (1) unduly intervening in or interfering with execution; (2) threatening and intimidating the sheriff to halt execution; (3) assisting his wife in filing the motion to intervene; and (4) abandoning his work station on the day of implementation.
Respondent denied threats, invoked Article 429 of the Civil Code (self‑help to repel an aggressor), explained his signature as assistance to his wife to protect their property, and claimed he was on sick leave on March 10. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended re‑docketing as a regular administrative matter and fining respondent P20,000 for violation of Canon 4, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court adopted the OCA findings but, having found ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Hannibal R. Patricio abandon his work station on March 10, 2015?
- Did respondent unduly interfere with the implementation of the writ of execution and resort to threats and intimidation, thereby committing conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer?
- Did respondent’s assistance to his wife in filing a motion to intervene constitute prohibited private practice of law or otherwise warrant separate discip...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)