Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-19-1925)
Challenge to Surveyor Qualification and CA Petition
- After a private relocation survey concluded the cockpit was within Lot 706, Benigla contested the private surveyor’s qualifications (not a licensed geodetic engineer) and sought designation of a DENR surveyor. The trial court denied the motion and its reconsideration. Benigla filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which did not secure a temporary restraining order; the trial court thereafter granted complainant’s motion for execution.
Issuance and Service of Writ of Execution
Issuance and Service of Writ of Execution
- A Writ of Execution was issued February 6, 2015, and served together with a Demand for Compliance/Delivery of Possession upon Benigla on February 26, 2015. The trial court then proceeded to implement the writ on March 10, 2015.
Confrontation at the Property During Execution
Respondent’s Interference During Execution
- On the morning of March 10, 2015, Sheriff Alvarez and Process Server Dellava arrived to implement the writ and effect fencing of Lots 703 and 706. Respondent Judge Patricio confronted them at the site, stated he would not allow the fencing, claimed that he and his wife owned adjoining Lot 707 (not Benigla), and complained they were not impleaded or notified. He allegedly warned that if the execution proceeded, “something untoward might happen,” and said he would manifest the situation in court. The officers left without completing the fencing.
Sheriff’s Report and Perceived Security Risk
Sheriff’s Report of Intimidating Surroundings
- In his report, Sheriff Alvarez noted motorcycle‑riding men moving about the premises, and, combined with the respondent judge’s warning, perceived a security risk that justified leaving. Complainant thereafter filed a Motion for Execution that the trial court had already granted.
Motion to Intervene and Respondent’s Assistance to His Wife
Motion to Intervene Filed by Wife with Respondent’s Assistance
- On March 16, 2015, Ruby filed a Motion to Intervene and Opposition to Implementation and to the Issuance of Writ of Demolition, which bore the printed name and respondent judge’s signature above the caption “JUDGE HANNIBAL R. PATRICIO.” The RTC denied the motion on March 24, 2015 for lack of merit.
Charges in the Administrative Complaint
Grounds of the Administrative Complaint
- Complainant alleged respondent: (1) unduly intervened in or interfered with the writ’s implementation; (2) threatened Sheriff Alvarez and his companions and stopped execution; (3) assisted his wife in filing a motion to intervene; and (4) abandoned his work station on the day of the attempted implementation.
Respondent’s Denials and Justifications
Respondent’s Justifications and Denials
- Respondent denied threats, claiming he merely conversed with the sheriff and asked for time to file a proper manifestation to protect Lot 707. He invoked Article 429 of the Civil Code (right to exclude and use reasonable force against an unlawful invasion) as basis for his conduct, argued the sketch plan omitted Lot 707 boundaries and risked encroachment, and said he was on sick leave on March 10, 2015 (thus denying abandonment). He claimed his assistance to his wife did not amount to private practice of law but was to secure their proprietary rights.
OCA’s Findings and Recommendation
OCA Findings: Interference and Penalty Recommendation
- The OCA found respondent improperly interfered with execution, constituting conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. The OCA acknowledged respondent’s intent to protect proprietary rights but concluded that as a judge he should have pursued legal remedies rather than obstruct execution. Considering a prior infraction, the OCA recommended re‑docketing the complaint and imposing a P20,000 fine with warning.
Supreme Court’s Evaluation of Abandonment Charge
No Merit in Abandonment Charge
- The Court found no merit to the abandonment allegation because respondent was certified to be on sick leave on March 10, 2015 by the Office of Administrative Services of the OCA.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Interference and Threats
Unwarranted Interference and Unbecoming Threats
- The Court concluded respondent’s other charges were substantiated. Respondent admitted presence and acknowledged preventing fencing because of perceived defects in the sketch plan. The Court held that, because the writ of execution stemmed from a lawful RTC order, respondent should not have substituted his own assessment or resorted to extrajudicial interference. The Court rejected reliance on Article 429: the sheriff, acting under court authority, was not an “aggressor” to whom self‑help could be lawfully applied. The Court characterized respondent’s warning that “something untoward might happen” as a threat that effectively prevented execution and as conduct unbecoming a judge.
Applicable Ethical and Professional Standards Found Violated
Violations of Judicial Conduct and Lawyerly Duties
- The Court found respondent violated Canon 2 (Integrity), Sections 1 and 2, and Canon 4 (Propriety), Sections 1 and 2, of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which require judges to act above reproach, preserve public confidence, avoid impropriety and appearance thereof, and comport with the dignity of office. The Court also cited Canons 1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (a lawyer’s duty to uphold the Constitution and maintain respect for courts and judicial officers) to emphasize the expectations of probity and respect.
Assessment of Assistance to Wife and Use of Judicial Title
Assistance to Wife Not Private Practice but Title’s Use Improper
- The Court agreed with respondent that aiding his wife in filing the motion did
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-19-1925)
Case Caption, Source and Procedural Posture
- Jurisprudence citation: 852 Phil. 149, FIRST DIVISION, A.M. No. MTJ-19-1925 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-2937-MTJ), June 03, 2019.
- Parties: Complainant Madeline Tan-Yap (daughter of plaintiff Nemesio Tan) v. Respondent Hon. Hannibal R. Patricio, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), President Roxas–Pilar, Capiz.
- Nature of proceeding: Administrative complaint against a sitting judge for conduct unbecoming a judicial officer arising from events connected to the implementation of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. V-09-11 (Regional Trial Court of Capiz).
- Final disposition: Respondent Judge Hannibal R. Patricio found GUILTY of three counts of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judicial Officer; imposed fine of P40,000.00 with warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely. Decision concurred in by Bersamin (C.J.), Jardeleza, and Gesmundo, JJ.; Carandang, J., on official leave.
Underlying Civil Litigation and Parties’ Relationship
- Civil Case No. V-09-11 (RTC of Capiz) was a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages filed by Nemesio Tan against Robenson Benigla.
- Complainant Madeline Tan-Yap is the daughter of Nemesio Tan; respondent Judge Hannibal R. Patricio is the son-in-law of Robenson Benigla (i.e., Benigla is respondent judge’s father-in-law).
- Respondent judge and his wife Ruby Benigla Patricio claim ownership of the adjoining Lot No. 707; the disputed subject properties in the case are Lot Nos. 703 and 706, Pilar Cadastre.
Court-Approved Compromise Agreement (Pertinent Provisions)
- Parties entered into a Compromise Agreement in the civil case which was approved by the RTC. Pertinent portions include:
- (2) Benigla admits Tan’s ownership of Lots 703 and 706 (properties subject of the case).
- (3) The parties agreed to cause the relocation of the properties involved to determine exact location of the cockpit and other structures subject of the complaint.
- (4) Costs or expenses for the relocation shall be borne by the parties pro rata.
- (6) Parties shall peacefully cooperate in the conduct of the relocation survey.
- (7) If the relocation survey shows the cockpit and other structures are inside Tan’s Lots 703 and 706, Benigla shall voluntarily remove them and return possession to Tan; if outside, Tan shall seek dismissal of the case.
- (8) Failure of any party to comply with the terms of the compromise entitles the aggrieved party to file an ex parte motion for execution.
Relocation Survey, Challenges and Post-Survey Proceedings
- The trial court issued an order directing a private surveying company to conduct a relocation survey on Lots 703 and 706 pursuant to the compromise agreement.
- The private survey found the cockpit to be inside Lot No. 706.
- Benigla contested the private survey’s validity, claiming the private surveyor was not a licensed geodetic engineer, and requested designation of a surveyor from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
- The trial court denied Benigla’s motion and motion for reconsideration.
- Benigla filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals and sought a temporary restraining order; the CA did not grant the temporary restraining order.
- Complainant filed a Motion for Execution of the Judgment which the trial court granted; a Writ of Execution was issued on February 6, 2015 and served with a Demand for Compliance/Delivery of Possession upon Benigla on February 26, 2015.
Events of March 10, 2015 — Attempted Implementation of Writ of Execution
- On the morning of March 10, 2015, Sheriff IV Romeo C. Alvarez, Jr. and Process Server Edgar Dellava of RTC Capiz, Branch 19, proceeded to Lot Nos. 703 and 706 to implement the writ of execution and to effect fencing.
- They were met by respondent Judge Hannibal R. Patricio who told them he would not allow the fencing of Lots 703 and 706.
- Respondent judge asserted that he and his wife Ruby actually own adjoining Lot No. 707 (not his father-in-law), complained they were not impleaded as defendants, and were not notified of the relocation survey.
- Respondent judge suggested that if the sheriff and his men proceeded with implementation, "something untoward might happen" ("kung padayonon nyo, basi maghinagamo").
- A group of motorcycle-riding men were reported by Sheriff Alvarez to be going back and forth on the premises during the confrontation.
- Sheriff Alvarez and his companions concluded their security was at risk, left the premises, and did not complete the fencing or implementation.
Subsequent Filings by Respondent Judge’s Wife and Respondent’s Participation
- On March 16, 2015, Ruby Benigla Patricio filed with the RTC a Motion to Intervene and Opposition to the Implementation of the Writ of Execution and Issuance of Writ of Demolition.
- Respondent judge assisted his wife in filing the motion and affixed his signature above the printed name "JUDGE HANNIBAL R. PATRICIO" on page three of the motion.
- The RTC denied Ruby’s motion for lack of merit by Order dated March 24, 2015.
Administrative Complaint and Specific Charges Against Respondent Judge
- Complainant alleged respondent judge violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct by:
- (1) Unduly intervening in the implementation of the writ of execution.
- (2) Threatening Sheriff Alvarez and his companions and stopping them from carrying out the writ.
- (3) Assisting his wife Ruby in filing a motion to intervene in Civil Case No. V-09-11.
- (4) Abandoning his work station on the day of the attempted implementation of the writ.
- Respondent judge denied the accusations in his Comment and provided explanations and defenses (set out below).
Respondent Judge’s Denials and Defenses (as stated in his Comment)
- Denied threats: stated he did not threaten Sheriff Alvarez and only engaged him in conversation, telling, arguing and asking the sheriff to afford them time until March 13, 2015 to file proper manifestation before court regarding their rights over Lot No. 707.
- Claimed property protection: argued that the intended fencing would prejudice him and his wife regarding Lot No. 707; asserted the sketch plan was incorrect and invalid because it omitted showing Lot No. 707 as bounding Lots 703 and 706, risking encroachment.
- Invoked Article 429 of