Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-04-1533)
Background of the Case
Mabanto, the defendant in Civil Case No. R-35618 concerning ejectment, found herself aggrieved after a judgment was rendered against her. She appealed this decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City and posted a supersedeas bond amounting to P45,000 to stay the execution of the judgment. On February 17, 1997, the RTC remanded the case back to the MTCC for re-trial. Subsequently, Mabanto's counsel attempted to withdraw the supersedeas bond but discovered that the respondent had granted the plaintiff's ex-parte motion to withdraw the rental deposit under the bond without notifying Mabanto or her counsel.
Allegations of Concealment
Mabanto contended that Respondent Coliflores concealed the motion to release the rental deposit from her and her counsel, as they were not informed about the ex-parte motion or its approval. Coliflores, in his response, denied this claim, arguing that Mabanto's counsel had been properly notified of the order allowing the bond's release. He claimed that the bond was released to cover back rent owed to the plaintiff.
Procedural Response and Findings
Mabanto asserted that her counsel had filed several motions aiming for the release of the bond, under the assumption that it was intact. She challenged the justification for the release of the bond, arguing that it was necessary to secure performance of the judgment pending appeal, which had not been determined by the RTC's remand.
On January 10, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) took up the case. The OCA concluded in a memorandum dated July 12, 2005, that Judge Coliflores should be fined P2,000, deducting it from his retirement benefits, considering that no malice attended his actions. The recommendation reflected the understanding that the incident occurred before the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which could have led to a heavier penalty.
Grounds for the Decision
The Court underscored that a supersedeas bond in ejectment cases is intended to provide security until the appeal is finally resolved and should remain intact unless the defendant consents to its release or fails to contest the motion. The Rules of Court require that all parties be served notice regarding motions, and without such notification, any motions filed are not entitled to judicial cognizance.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-04-1533)
Case Overview
- This case is an administrative complaint filed by Vicky C. Mabanto against Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Cebu City.
- The complaint alleges Serious Misconduct, Inefficiency, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019).
- The allegations are connected to the handling of a supersedeas bond in Civil Case No. R-35618.
Background of the Case
- Vicky Mabanto was the defendant in an ejectment case, leading to a judgment against her, which she subsequently appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City.
- To stay the execution of the judgment during the appeal, she posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of P45,000.
- On February 17, 1997, the RTC resolved the appeal and remanded the case back to the MTCC for re-trial.
Events Leading to the Complaint
- Mabanto’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw the supersedeas bond after the remand.
- She later learned from the Clerk of Court that on September 23, 1996, Judge Coliflores had granted an ex-parte motion from the plaintiff to withdraw the bond, which had been released to the plaintiff without notifying Mabanto or her counsel.
- The complaint alleges that the respondent concealed this motion and order from Mabanto, impacting her ability to oppose the release