Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-17-2491)
Facts:
Lucio L. Yu, Jr. v. Presiding Judge Jesus B. Mupas, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2491 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3448-RTJ), July 04, 2018, the Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Lucio L. Yu, Jr. filed the Complaint-Affidavit dated June 17, 2010 (with a Supplemental Complaint dated November 4, 2010) in his capacity as Vice President/Assistant Chief Legal Counsel of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), charging respondent Presiding Judge Jesus B. Mupas of RTC, Branch 112, Pasay City, with grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and knowingly rendering an unjust order in Civil Case No. 07-1139-CFM (Government Service Insurance System v. Felix D. Mendoza).
Chronologically, GSIS filed a Complaint for Collection with a prayer for Preliminary Attachment against Felix D. Mendoza arising from an unpaid loan. On August 3, 2007, Judge Mupas granted the writ of preliminary attachment; the subject Ford Explorer pick-up was seized on April 28, 2008. GSIS moved to declare Mendoza in default for failure to answer; on September 5, 2008 Judge Mupas issued an order declaring Mendoza in default and allowed GSIS to present evidence ex parte, which GSIS did on October 20, 2008 at about 9:00 a.m. Mendoza nonetheless appeared later that same day and filed an Omnibus Motion with a belated Answer.
On February 4, 2009 Judge Mupas granted Mendoza’s Omnibus Motion, set aside the default and dismissed the case on the ground that the vehicle was allegedly surrendered and therefore fully satisfied the loan obligation, citing Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of Court. GSIS’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 29, 2009. GSIS filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 110402); the CA, in a Decision dated August 11, 2010 (final and executory March 12, 2011), ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the case without either granting a proper motion to set aside the default or conducting a preliminary hearing, and that the surrender of the vehicle could not be conclusively treated as full satisfaction.
While the CA petition was pending, Yu filed the administrative complaint against Judge Mupas. Judge Mupas answered, arguing that the administrative complaint was premature and amounted to malicious forum shopping and that GSIS failed to prove bad faith, malice, or corrupt motive. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted a Report dated January 30, 2017 recommending a finding of guilt fo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the filing of the administrative complaint while the petition before the Court of Appeals was still pending a ground for dismissal as premature or malicious forum shopping?
- Did Judge Jesus B. Mupas commit gross ignorance of the law, violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or knowingly render an unjust judgment when he dismissed Civil Case No. 07-1139-CFM without conducting the required hearing or properly setting aside the order of default?
- If liable, what...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)