Title
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Liangco
Case
A.C. No. 5355
Decision Date
Dec 13, 2011
A former judge was disbarred for gross misconduct and ignorance of the law after issuing a biased resolution without due process, leading to an unlawful eviction.
disbarment
gross misconduct
demolition of house
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5355)

Factual Background

The Court relied on the facts in A. M. No. MTJ-97-1136, involving Hermogenes T. Gozun (Gozun) and the municipal government of San Luis, Pampanga. Gozun had been in open and adverse possession of the subject land for more than thirty years and had erected his family house thereon. The municipality claimed ownership of the lot, and through its Sangguniang Bayan it issued Resolution No. 26-96 on January 12, 1996, considering a lot under a stated tax declaration as a new site for the Rural Health Center, specifically the area where Gozun’s family allegedly was “squatting.” It later issued Resolution No. 34-96 on May 17, 1996 to amend Resolution No. 26-96.

On May 24, 1996, Romulo M. Batu, Vice Mayor and representative of the Sangguniang Bayan, filed before the MTC, San Luis, Pampanga a “Petition for Declaratory Relief” addressed to Judge Daniel Liangco, to obtain a legal opinion on the validity of the resolution, the municipal mayor’s powers to enforce it, and authority to order the Philippine National Police (PNP) to assist in implementation. The petition stated that the proposed site was allegedly being “squatted” by Gozun and asserted that notices and requests to vacate had been made.

On the same day, May 24, 1996, Liangco issued a resolution. In that resolution, he reasoned that the municipality, through its Sangguniang Bayan, could regulate use of property within its jurisdiction; that Resolution No. 34-96 was not contrary to law, morals, or public policy; that the municipal mayor could order law enforcement, including the PNP, to enforce the resolution using reasonable force if necessary; and that “squatting” in government property was a nuisance per se. He thus ruled that, upon issuance by the mayor of an executive order, the municipality could order the PNP to effect the eviction of Gozun and others claiming under him from the described lot.

A day later in the narration of facts in the record, it was shown that the municipal mayor issued Executive Order No. 1, series of 1996, ordering the PNP to implement Resolution No. 34-96. Gozun was not served with summons or given notice of the petition for declaratory relief. When Gozun learned of the resolution on June 2, 1996, his family subsequently sought information from the judge. On August 8, 1996, agents of the municipal government demolished Gozun’s house, using Liangco’s resolution and the mayor’s executive order as basis. On December 18, 1996, Gozun filed an administrative complaint with the OCA, alleging that Liangco’s issuance of the resolution constituted gross misconduct, gross inefficiency, and incompetence, and he further accused the mayor of bribery involving Liangco.

Prior Administrative Discipline and Referral to Disbarment

The OCA investigated the complaint in A. M. No. MTJ-97-1136 and submitted a memorandum recommending dismissal from the bench. The Court En Banc adopted the recommendation in a per curiam resolution dated August 30, 2000, and dismissed Liangco from the service with the severe penalties described above. The Court found that he blatantly ignored the basic rules of fair play and acted without jurisdiction by entertaining a petition for declaratory relief despite his status as a judge of a first-level court. The Court also noted that his ruling had resulted in the demolition of Gozun’s house and rendered his family homeless.

The Court directed the OCA to initiate disbarment proceedings against Liangco within thirty days from finality. After that directive, the OCA filed the present disbarment complaint on November 10, 2000, docketed as Administrative Case No. (A.C.) 5355.

The OCA’s Charges and Respondent’s Response

In its complaint dated November 6, 2000, the OCA charged Liangco with gross misconduct for acting with manifest bias and partiality toward a party and for inexcusable ignorance of well-established rules of procedure that allegedly challenged his competence to remain a member of the legal profession. The OCA prayed that he be disbarred and that his name be struck off the Roll of Attorneys.

The Court En Banc required Liangco to comment. On June 1, 2001, he submitted his comment/answer. He invoked the claimed good faith character of his act, stating that when he acted on the petition filed by the Sangguniang Bayan, he was merely rendering a legal opinion honestly and in good faith, without malice, bad faith, or ulterior motive. He also asked the Court for compassion on account of his claim that law practice was his only means of livelihood to support his family.

On August 7, 2001, the Court En Banc noted his submission and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

IBP Hearings and Report and Recommendation

The IBP conducted hearings with Liangco’s participation. On October 3, 2003, the investigating commissioner issued a report and recommendation finding justification for disbarment. She held that there was clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence to warrant disbarment and that Liangco exhibited lapses and ignorance of well-established rules and procedures. She further noted that the complaint was not the first against him. She also recounted prior judicial discipline, including a six-month suspension before his dismissal for assigning, without a raffle, fifty-four cases for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1602 and Supreme Court Circular No. 7 dated September 23, 1974.

The investigating commissioner also noted that there were administrative cases pending before the Supreme Court against him for dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and direct bribery. In the bribery case, she stated he had been caught by the National Bureau of Investigation in an entrapment operation.

Motions for Reconsideration and IBP Board Approval

On January 30, 2009, Liangco filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that the evidence presented in the earlier dismissal proceedings was the same used in the disbarment case. He argued that he had not been afforded the chance to cross-examine witnesses and thus had been deprived of due process. He also invoked an Affidavit of Desistance executed by Gozun and argued that the case should have been dismissed. He further claimed efforts at self-improvement through religious involvement and through attendance in Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE).

On May 12, 2009, he filed a supplemental motion, again emphasizing Gozun’s desistance and the fact that he had already suffered dismissal as an MTC judge. The IBP Board of Governors, through Resolution No. XVIII-2008-525 dated October 9, 2008, adopted the investigating commissioner’s report and recommendation, finding that he had acted with manifest bias and partiality in favor of a party-litigant and had shown inexcusable ignorance of the Rules of Procedure, and it adopted the recommendation to disbar him.

On June 30, 2011, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline transmitted the records of A.C. No. 5355 to the Court, which noted the records on August 16, 2011.

Issues Considered by the Court

The Court framed the case around whether the record showed, with sufficient basis, that Liangco committed gross misconduct and inexcusable ignorance of well-established rules of procedure in a manner reflecting unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. It also had to consider Liangco’s claim of good faith and his invocation of Gozun’s desistance, as well as his contention that he was deprived of due process in the disbarment proceedings.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Gross Misconduct

The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings. It reiterated its definition of gross misconduct as any inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct by a person concerned with the administration of justice, conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. The Court emphasized that motive generally involves a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose.

On the facts, the Court held that Liangco had acted upon the “Petition for Declaratory Relief” filed by the Sangguniang Bayan without mandatory notice to Gozun, who was the named person directly affected by the petition’s practical effects. The record showed that Liangco docketed the petition and designated Gozun as respondent in the case title, yet he disposed of the matter on the same day it was filed without notice and without hearing. The Court considered Liangco’s admission that he believed he was merely rendering a legal opinion at the local government’s behest, which he “gladly and expeditiously” obliged, as strongly inconsistent with his claim of good faith.

The Court found the claim of good faith difficult to accept given the undue haste in issuing the resolution on the same day as filing. It also relied on testimonial evidence showing a relationship that could reasonably suggest undue influence: the testimony of Romulo A. Batu indicated that Liangco maintained close relations with the municipal vice-mayor, who had an obvious interest in the outcome. The Court treated this as evidence that Liangco disregarded the requirements of judicial independence and its protection from undue influence under Canon 1, Sections 4 and 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Court further cited its earlier discussion in Edano v. Judge Asdala, emphasizing that judges must not only maintain independence, integrity, and impartiality but must also avoid any appearance of impropriety or partiality, because respect and confidence in the judiciary depend on both actual fairness and the perception of fairness. It underscored that impartiality applies not only to the decision but also to the process by which the decision is made, and it referenced the OCA Circular No. 70-2003 directing judges to avoid in-chambers sessions without the other party and counsel present. The Court held that Liangco’s conduct failed these standards as shown by the record.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Inexcu

...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.

About Privacy Terms