A.M. No. MTJ-89-269, MTJ-89-292 - McCormack vs. Montemayor

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-89-269, MTJ-89-292)

Factual Background

The Investigator’s report and the record review disclosed a series of irregularities connected with the remand, execution, “break-open” proceedings, notice and sale, and the timing of court actions affecting the complainants’ ability to seek further review and to protect their property.

On January 2, 1989, Ms. Usi filed two urgent ex parte motions. The first was an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Remand the Case to the Court of Origin” filed in the Regional Trial Court without notice to the complainants. Judge Guinto immediately granted it and ordered the remand to the Municipal Trial Court. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Usi filed in the Municipal Trial Court an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Immediate Execution,” also without furnishing a copy to complainants’ counsel. On January 3, 1989, Judge Montemayor issued an order granting the motion for immediate execution.

On that same date, the complainants filed an opposition to the remand motion in the Regional Trial Court after learning of its existence. They likewise filed a “Petition for Review” with the Court of Appeals on January 3, 1989. On January 4, 1989, the writ of execution was endorsed to Deputy Sheriff Lising. The writ’s first paragraph stated that the case was for a “Sum of Money.” On January 5, 1989, Ms. Usi filed an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Break Open.” Judge Montemayor promptly issued a “Break-Open” order naming as the premises to be broken into the complainants’ “residential premises,” although the ejectment case actually involved the Manhattan Transfer Restaurant.

On January 6, 1989, without clarifying with the court which premises were legally subject to the break-open order, the deputy sheriff, with others, broke open the Manhattan Transfer Restaurant, hauled away the complainants’ property, and levied upon the building to answer the money judgment in the writ of execution. He then issued a “Sheriff’s Notice of Sale.” Copies were merely posted at the municipal building and were not served on complainants’ counsel until requested on January 9, 1989, together with copies of motions and orders issued after December 28, 1988. The auction sale was initially set for January 16, 1989 but was held on January 17, 1989 beyond 5:00 p.m. despite requests to postpone the sale until after the Court of Appeals had ruled on the petition for review. Ms. Usi was the sole bidder and acquired the restaurant at a low price of P20,530.50.

Proceedings and Court Review

The administrative complaints were treated as separate matters: Adm. Matter No. MTJ-89-269 against Judge Montemayor and Adm. Matter No. P-89-292 against Deputy Sheriff Lising, with Judge Guinto addressed in light of allegations that were “inextricably impleaded” with the proceedings that followed his orders. The Court examined the testimony and the records, and it reviewed the Investigator’s factual findings. It also assessed certain evidentiary matters, sustaining objections where the matters were not alleged in the complaint and where the evidence presented was hearsay.

The Court treated the charge of perjury contained in a supplemental complaint as waived because it was not brought to the Court’s attention at the hearing and at the time of submission for resolution.

The Parties’ Contentions and Administrative Charges

The complaints alleged that the respondents acted with serious and improper motives and violated duties owed in handling motions, execution orders, service of processes, and enforcement of judgments. For Judge Montemayor, the allegations included grave partiality, serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law, in relation to the orders granting execution and issuing the break-open directive, as well as the handling of writ execution. For Deputy Sheriff Lising, the complaints alleged misconduct, oppression, and partiality in connection with the execution and the auction sale.

The evidence and the Investigator’s report supported the Court’s finding that the irregularities were not isolated clerical errors but reflected failures to observe essential procedural safeguards, including proper reliance on the writ’s terms, correct identification of premises, and compliance with execution rules governing notice and sale.

The Court’s Findings on Judge Eliodoro B. Guinto (Despite Non-Nominal Impleader)

Although Judge Guinto was not nominally impleaded in the caption as a respondent in Adm. Matter No. MTJ-89-269, the Court held that the allegations in the complaint “inextricably impleaded” him and that the evidence gathered during the investigation established grave partiality on his part.

The Court focused on the timing and manner in which Judge Guinto acted on Ms. Usi’s urgent ex parte remand motion filed on January 2, 1989. It noted that Judge Guinto’s decision of November 28, 1988 was released late, so complainants’ counsel received it only on December 28, 1988, leaving only one day before the long year-end holidays. The complainants deposited a supersedeas bond and paid the required monthly rentals, and the Court stressed that the 15-day period to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals had not yet expired.

Judge Guinto granted the remand upon an ex parte motion, immediately transmitted the records, and acted despite the complainants’ opposition and pending time to seek review. The Court found no real urgency in the motion except the citation of Section 18 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, which refers to the immediate executory character of a Regional Trial Court decision. However, the Court ruled that the provision did not apply because the decision did not actually affirm the trial court’s decision “in toto,” even if it was so stated, since there was a modification.

The Court also faulted Judge Guinto’s approach to ex parte practice. It held that the motion being “ex parte” could not justify granting relief in the absence of, and without the slightest knowledge of, the adverse party. It concluded that Judge Guinto virtually ignored his judicial discretion to determine whether a motion could be acted upon ex parte, and it held that his inaction regarding the complainants’ opposition to remand could not be justified by loss of jurisdiction caused by his own orders. It held that it was incumbent on him to have recalled the records motu proprio, allowed the filing of the petition for review, and held execution in abeyance. The Court anchored the duty of judicial discretion and action in Sec. 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court.

Accordingly, the Court sentenced Judge Guinto to pay a fine of P5,000.00 as penalty.

The Court’s Findings on Judge Jose G. Montemayor

In Adm. Matter No. MTJ-89-269, the Court found Judge Montemayor guilty of gross negligence and grave partiality in issuing the questioned orders and the writ. The Court held that Judge Montemayor failed to provide the complainants with a copy of his order granting the motion for immediate execution. It also found that he signed and issued a writ of execution erroneously stating that the case was for a “Sum of Money”, and that it treated the dispositive part of his decision as the basis for execution even though the decision had been modified.

The Court viewed Judge Montemayor’s reliance on personnel as evidenced by reckless signing of forms without ascertaining their correctness. It further held that the “break-open” order incorrectly designated the premises to be broken into as the complainants’ “residential premises,” a description not supported by the ejectment case’s actual subject matter.

The Court explained that the break-open order was not supported by a proper Sheriff’s Return, which was filed about a week later, but relied instead only on a Sheriff’s affidavit showing that the premises were padlocked and that the complainants’ address could not be found. The Court expressed doubt whether the deputy sheriff truly inspected the premises named in the order and whether he actually attempted to locate the address. It additionally held that a copy of the order was not served on the complainants.

On the charge that Judge Montemayor was not in his office at Branch I on January 5, 1989, the Court noted that the complainants’ counsel admitted that Judge Montemayor was also acting presiding judge for the Municipal Circuit Trial Court and was supposed to be in Mabalacat-Magalang. The Court sustained objections to evidence offered on that matter because it was not alleged in the complaint. It also sustained an objection that the affidavit presented was hearsay.

In light of these findings, the Court sentenced Judge Montemayor to pay a fine of P8,000.00 as penalty.

The Court’s Findings on Deputy Sheriff Tomasito B. Lising

In Adm. Matter No. P-89-292, the Court held that Deputy Sheriff Lising was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of grave misconduct, oppression, and grave partiality in the conduct of the writ of execution up to the auction sale.

The Court scrutinized the deputy sheriff’s affidavit executed on January 4, 1989. The affidavit stated that at 9:30 a.m. he verified the premises. Yet the writ was actually endorsed to him at 9:45 a.m. on the same day. The Court questioned how he could verify and ascertain that the building was padlocked and that the defendants’ address could not be found before receiving the writ. The Court found that the affidavit was prepared by the plaintiff’s counsel, underscoring its lack of credibility and the improper circumstances surrounding it.

The Court also found that the deputy sheriff proceeded to break open the Manhattan Transfer Restaurant as early as 8:10 a.m. on January 6, 1989 with the help of others and without the knowledge of the complainants as proprietors of the premises. It further

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-89-269, MTJ-89-292)

Lourdes McCormack and Blaise McCormack filed administrative complaints against Deputy Sheriff Tomasito Lising of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch I, Angeles City, for misconduct, gross inefficiency, and neglect of duty.
Lourdes and Blaise McCormack also filed an administrative complaint against Hon. Jose G. Montemayor, Presiding Judge of the same Municipal Trial Court, Branch I, for grave partiality, serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law.
Judge Eliodoro B. Guinto of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City was impleaded in the administrative complaints as to specified allegations and filed his comment as required by an En Banc resolution dated June 22, 1989.
The administrative complaints were resolved En Banc by Resolution per curiam on July 23, 1990, after investigation and review of the records.

Underlying Ejectment Case

The administrative charges arose from a civil ejectment case filed on December 2, 1988 by Leonida Usi, the plaintiff-lessor, against Lourdes and Blaise McCormack.
The Municipal Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Ms. Usi, and the decision was affirmed on appeal by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City under Judge Eliodoro B. Guinto on November 28, 1988, with a modification ordering the complainants to pay back rentals.
The administrative records established irregularities attributable both to the respondent officers and to RTC Judge Eliodoro B. Guinto, mainly concerning failure to serve copies of motions, orders, and processes, disregard of supersedeas bond and required monthly rentals, and execution-related actions affecting complainants’ property and rights.

Key Procedural Irregularities

The records showed that on January 2, 1989, Ms. Usi filed two urgent ex parte motions with the Regional Trial Court, without notice to the complainants.
The first motion was an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Remand the Case to the Court of Origin”; it was immediately granted by Judge Guinto, and the case was remanded to the Municipal Trial Court.
The second motion filed by Ms. Usi with the Municipal Trial Court was an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Immediate Execution,” and again no copy was furnished to complainants’ counsel.
On January 3, 1989, Judge Montemayor issued an order granting the immediate execution motion.
On January 3, 1989, upon learning of the remand motion, Lourdes and Blaise McCormack filed an opposition with the Regional Trial Court and simultaneously filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
The execution writ endorsed on January 4, 1989 stated in its first paragraph that the case involved a “Sum of Money.”
On January 5, 1989, Ms. Usi filed an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Break Open,” and Judge Montemayor immediately issued a “Break-Open” order naming the premises as the complainants’ “residential premises,” although the ejectment case actually concerned a different property.
On January 6, 1989, without clarifying which premises were intended, Deputy Sheriff Lising—with others—broke open the Manhattan Transfer Restaurant, hauled away the complainants’ property, and levied the building to answer for the money judgment in the writ.
Sheriff’s notices of sale were only posted at the municipal building and were not served on complainants’ counsel until January 9, 1989, after counsel requested copies together with those of motions and orders issued after December 28, 1988.
The auction sale was set for January 16, 1989 but was held on January 17, 1989 beyond 5:00 p.m., notwithstanding further requests to postpone it until after the Court of Appeals ruled on the petition for review.
Ms. Usi was the sole bidder and purchased the restaurant at PHP 20,530.50, which the Court characterized as a low price.

Court’s Evaluation of RTC Judge Guinto

The Court held Judge Eliodoro B. Guinto guilty of grave partiality despite his not being nominally impleaded in the caption as a respondent in one of the administrative matters.
The Court found that Judge Guinto’s decision dated November 28, 1988 was released late, resulting in the complainants’ counsel receiving it only on December 28, 1988, thereby leaving only one day before long year-end holidays beginning with Rizal Day (December 30) to New Year’s Day.
The Court held that on January 2, 1989, the first working day of the year, Judge Guinto granted the ex parte motion to remand despite the complainants having posted supersedeas bond and paid the required monthly rentals, and despite the 15-day period to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals not having expired.
The Court found no actual urgency in the contents of the motion, and it noted the motion’s reliance on Section 18 of the Rule on Summary Procedure regarding executory effect of an RTC decision.
The Court ruled that the cited provision did not apply because the RTC decision did not affirm “in toto,” even if it stated so, given that it ordered a modification.
The Court held that the ex parte nature of the motion could not justify an order granting remand without the absence of, and without the slightest knowledge of the adverse party.
The Court concluded that Judge Guinto virtually ignored judicial discretion to determine whether a motion could be acted upon ex parte, leaving that determination to the movant.
The Court held that Judge Guinto’s inaction on the complainants’ opposition to the motion to remand could not be justified by loss of jurisdiction caused by his own orders or by any alleged responsibility of the complainants to recall records.
The Court stated that it was incumbent upon Judge Guinto to have recalled the records motu proprio, allowed filing of the petition for review, and held execution in abeyance under Sec. 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court.
The Court held that Judge Guinto should not have ordered immediate remand of the records.

Findings Against Judge Montemayor

The Court held Judge Jose G. Montemayor guilty of gross negligence and grave partiality in issuing the questioned orders and writ.
The Court found that Judge Montemayor did not provide