Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467)
Administrative Complaint Overview
Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong filed an administrative complaint against Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal for gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, inefficiency, and neglect of duty. The background stems from a prior case wherein the heirs of Enrique Abada filed a complaint against Atty. Tamondong's client, Henmar Development Property, Inc., seeking various forms of relief including the annulment of a transfer certificate of title.
Summary of Proceedings
On June 21, 2012, the heirs of Enrique Abada filed a case for Quieting of Title and related claims in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Opol, Misamis Oriental against Henmar. Henmar subsequently filed a motion to dismiss based on several jurisdictional grounds, but the motion was denied, leading to a petition for certiorari that was eventually dismissed by Judge Pasal on December 23, 2013.
Grounds for Judicial Dismissal
In his Resolution dated December 23, 2013, Judge Pasal assessed the validity of the motion to dismiss. He ruled that the MTCC had jurisdiction over the case, stating that the summons served was valid, and that jurisdiction was properly established despite the circumstances surrounding the service of summons. He also addressed the territorial jurisdiction, noting discrepancies in the historical existence of the municipalities involved.
Delay in Resolving Motion for Reconsideration
After filing a Motion for Reconsideration by Henmar, Judge Pasal failed to resolve the motion within the reglementary period of 30 days, leading to an administrative complaint. Atty. Tamondong contended that the unexplained delay constituted gross inefficiency and neglect of duty.
Judicial Discretion and Nature of Judicial Acts
Judge Pasal defended his actions by highlighting the judicial nature of his earlier Resolution, arguing that Atty. Tamondong’s grievances were properly suited for judicial remedies rather than administrative complaints. He maintained that errors made in the exercise of judicial discretion do not amount to administrative liability when executed in good faith.
Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
The OCA recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. They found Judge Pasal guilty of gross inefficiency for failing to act on the Motion for Reconsideration, imposing a fine of PHP 2,000, while dismissing the charge of gross ignorance of the law since it pertains to the judicial functions of the court.
Court’s Conclusion on Judicial Errors
Th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467)
Case Overview
- The case is an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong against Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal, the Presiding Judge of Branch 38, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cagayan de Oro City.
- The complaint revolves around allegations of gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, gross inefficiency, and neglect of duty related to Judge Pasal's handling of Special Civil Action No. 2013-184, which concerns a case filed by the heirs of Enrique Abada against Henmar Development Property, Inc.
Antecedent Facts
- The case originated when the heirs of Enrique Abada filed a Quieting of Title and related claims against Henmar Development Property, Inc. in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Opol, Misamis Oriental.
- Henmar, represented by Atty. Tamondong, filed an Omnibus Motion seeking dismissal of the complaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and prescription.
- The MTCC denied this motion, prompting Henmar to escalate the matter to the RTC via a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Preliminary Injunction.
Judge Pasal's Resolution
- On December 23, 2013, Judge Pasal dismissed the Petition for lack of merit, asserting:
- The MTCC had jurisdiction as summons was validly served.
- Jurisdiction over the property was appropriate, despite its location being described in relation to the historical context of local governance.
- The action was not barred by prescription since t