Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-94-1160)
Facts:
Alexander Vito filed an administrative complaint against Judge Teofilo Buslon, Jr., then acting presiding judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cebu City, for alleged ignorance of the law, breach of judicial ethics, and unjustly rendering interlocutory orders in Civil Case No. CEB-10222 for support. The case was pending decision when the respondent took over in 1992, with an unresolved motion for reconsideration of the Order dated October 30, 1992, which denied the motion to suspend support pendente lite and the motion to quash the writ of execution; complainant asserted that respondent rendered judgment on June 7, 1993 without resolving that motion.After the appeal was perfected, plaintiffs moved for execution pending appeal and the respondent granted it, and later sought to cite complainant for contempt based on refusal to give support. Complainant opposed for lack of jurisdiction and lack of verification, and he also complained that respondent issued a hold order withou
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-94-1160)
Facts:
- Initiation of the administrative complaint
- Complainant Alexander Vito filed an administrative complaint against Respondent Judge Teofilo Buslon, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cebu City.
- The complaint alleged (a) ignorance of the law, (b) breach or violation of ethics, and (c) unjustly rendering interlocutory orders.
- Complainant was the defendant in Civil Case No. CEB-10222, entitled *“Mibelen Singson-Vito, et al. v. Alexander Vito”*, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Cebu City, for support.
- Change of presiding judge and pendency of a motion for reconsideration
- Respondent became the acting presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 6 upon the retirement of then presiding judge, Judge Ramon Am. Torres, in 1992.
- When Respondent took over, Civil Case No. CEB-10222 was pending decision.
- At that time, there remained an unresolved motion for reconsideration of the Order dated October 30, 1992.
- The October 30, 1992 Order denied:
- the motion to suspend the giving of support pendente lite; and
- the motion to quash the writ of execution of complainant.
- Alleged ignorance of the law: decision rendered without resolving the pending motion for reconsideration
- Complainant alleged that on June 7, 1993, Respondent rendered a decision without resolving the motion for reconsideration of the October 30, 1992 Order.
- The dispositive portion of the decision ordered, in favor of plaintiff:
- the payment of support of P10,000.00 per month, payable within the first five days of every month to the plaintiff starting from May 1991, deducting the amount of support pendente lite;
- reimbursement of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses in the amount of P10,000.00; and
- payment of the costs of the suit.
- Complainant timely appealed from the decision.
- Execution pending appeal and subsequent motion to quash
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for execution pending appeal dated July 6, 1993, which Respondent granted on July 15, 1993.
- On July 23, 1993, complainant filed a motion to quash the Order dated July 15, 1993 on grounds that:
- it was issued beyond the jurisdiction of the court because the appeal had already been perfected; and
- no notice was sent to him in violation of Section 2, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- Plaintiffs withdrew the motion for execution pending appeal because they could not afford to pay the premiums for the supersedeas bond.
- As a result, the motion to quash was mooted.
- Motion to cite for contempt and denial by complainant
- On August 4, 1993, one month after perfection of the appeal, plaintiffs filed a motion to cite complainant for contempt.
- The motion alleged that on October 28, 1991, the trial court issued an order granting the application for support pendente lite.
- The motion further alleged that despite the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the support pendente lite order, complainant refused to give the support.
- On August 13, 1993, complainant opposed the motion on grounds that:
- it was not verified in violation of Section 6, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court; and
- the trial court had lost jurisdiction upon perfection of the appeal.
- Complainant claimed that Respondent, without any hearing, issued an order on August 24, 1993 finding him guilty of contempt of court and ordered his arrest without bail.
- Respondent, in his Comment, contended that the Regional Trial Court was not deprived of jurisdiction despite perfection of an appeal because the case involved support, described as a continuing obligation.
- Holdings relied upon by the Court regarding jurisdiction in support cases and the finding of negligence
- The Court discussed the ruling in Vasco v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 762 (1978) that after perfection of the appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction over support cases except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties.
- The Court stated that Respondent’s view—that the court never lost jurisdiction over the support case—was correct only with regard to the amount of maintenance allowance, which was described as essentially provisional, citing Canonizado v. Benitez, 125 SCRA 610 (1984).
- The Court held that although a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for an error of judgment, this did not mean a judge should be negligent in performing adjudicatory prerogatives, citing Revita v. Rimando, 98 SCRA 619 (1980).
- The Court found Respondent negligent in the handling of the matter.
- Alleged unjust interlocutory orders: hold order issued on the basis of a non-existing motion and a void contempt order
- Complainant alleged that on August 30, 1993, Respondent issued a hold order dated August 30, 1993 based on:
- a non-existing motion; and
- a void order for contempt of court.
- Complainant alleged that the basis of the August 30, 1993 order was a motion for hold order dated August 31, 1993, filed by plaintiffs on the same day at 3:20 P.M.
- Complainant asserted that:
- the antedating of the motion to August 30, 1993 was intended to cover up Respondent’s lack of jurisdiction after September 3, 1993 as presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6; and
- Respondent issued the August 30, 1993 Order without complainant’s knowledge because complainant was served with the motion only on September 3, 1993.
- Complainant claimed that he was deprived of his day in court because Respondent ruled immediately before notice was received.
- Respondent’s explanation for date discrepancy and issuance of the hold order ex parte
- Respondent averred that the discrepancy in dates was due to a typographical error by the stenographer who typed the order.
- The Court found the explanation satisfactory based on the affidavit dated November 18, 1993 of Court Stenographer Esperanza A. Bascar, who admitted she made the mistake in typing the date.
- Regarding the issuance of the hold order even before complainant received his copy of the motion, Respondent attached a copy of the Order dated December 9, 1993 of Judge De la Victoria who assumed office over the branch.
- The December 9, 1993 Order stated that departure from the normal procedure could be done ex parte...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether Respondent was guilty of ignorance of the law for rendering a decision without first resolving the pending motion for reconsideration of the October 30, 1992 Order.
- Whether Respondent should have resolved the pending motion for reconsideration before rendering the decision on June 7, 1993.
- Whether Respondent was guilty of ignorance of the law or negligence for dealing with matters after perfection of the appeal in a support case.
- Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction after perfection of appeal, particularly in issuing orders and addressing contempt related to support pendente lite.
- Whether Respondent erred in adjudicating contempt-related relief and arrest without bail despite perfection of the appeal and the limits recognized in *Vasco* and *Canonizado*.
- Whether Respondent unjustly rendered interlocutory orders by issuing a hold order on the basis of a non-existing motion and without giving complainant notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Whether the hold order dated August 30, 1993 was improperly based on an antedated or non-existing motion.
- Whether Respondent issued the hold order before complainant received the motion, thereby depriving complainant of due process in violati...(Subscriber-Only)