Title
Gonzales vs. Bersamin
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1344
Decision Date
Mar 13, 1996
Veronica Gonzales accused Judge Bersamin of grave misconduct for unjust judgment, refusal to implead her, and dereliction of duty in a property dispute involving annotations; the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint but admonished the judge for lacking judicial diligence in notifying parties-in-interest.

Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-01-10-P)

Allegations Against the Respondent

Gonzales accused Judge Bersamin of grave misconduct, which includes the knowingly rendering of an unjust judgment and the issuing of unjust interlocutory orders. Additional charges involve his malicious refusal to recognize Gonzales as an indispensable party in the ongoing litigation and negligence in duties regarding Civil Case No. Q-94-21444. Gonzales argues that Judge Bersamin's decisions favored the Chans while disregarding her rights over the property subject to levy.

Background of the Case

The genesis of the case dates back to Criminal Case No. 1565-M-88, wherein the accused were ordered to pay Gonzales and her husband P600,000.00. In another case involving the same parties, they were awarded P3,700,000.00. The property at the heart of the dispute, under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 319410, had notices of levy recorded against it for Gonzales' claims but was mired in a reconstitution process that complicated ownership assertions.

Sequence of Events Leading to Complaint

On August 23, 1994, the Chans filed for cancellation of the notices of levy, contending they were the rightful owners of the property due to a prior deed of absolute sale with the Cruz spouses. Complainant Gonzales's notices were carried over to the new title (TCT No. 50572) issued to the Chans, despite her claims being earlier in time. The judge expedited his decision, ordering the cancellation of the levy notices with potentially inadequate regard for Gonzales's rights.

Respondent's Defense

Judge Bersamin defended his actions, arguing that there was no need to notify Gonzales because she was not a party in the case. He claimed that any duty to inform her rested with the Register of Deeds rather than the court. He further denied allegations of haste or partiality, asserting that the previous registrars had ample opportunity to contest the action.

Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of Gonzales' complaint, citing that she did not seek to intervene in the case and that her claims came after the prior deed of sale. It emphasized the lack of evidence demonstrating favoritism by Judge Bersamin towards the Chans. The memorandum pointed out that the judge had no obligation to give notice to Gonzales regarding the cancellation since she was a later registrant.

Conclusion of the Case Analysis

The court concluded

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.