Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40436:a-m-no-mtj-97-1136-august-30,-2000-hermogenes-t-gozun-v-daniel-b-liangco&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:37:15+00:00

Document:
HERMOGENES T. GOZUN, Complainant, v. HON. DANIEL B. LIANGCO, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, and Acting Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mexico-San Luis, Pampanga, Respondent.
The case is an administrative complaint 1 for the dismissal of Judge Daniel B. Liangco, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, and Acting Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mexico-San Luis, Pampanga for serious misconduct, gross inefficiency and incompetence. This is in relation to his handling of a petition for declaratory relief filed by the Sangguniang Bayan of San Luis, Pampanga, 2 which sought his legal opinion on the validity of Resolution No. 34-96 which provided that Lot No. 114, belonging to the municipality of San Luis, but occupied by the family of Hermogenes T. Gozun, be used for the construction of the Rural’ Health Center of San Luis, Pampanga.
We state the antecedent facts.
Complainant Hermogenes T. Gozun (hereinafter referred to as "Gozun") was in open and adverse possession of subject land for a period of more than thirty years. 3 His family’s house was erected on the land. The house was made of old vintage lumber, cement, hollow blocks, G. I. sheet roofing and other strong materials.
Gozun inherited the house and lot from his parents.
"1.	The validity of the attached Resolution.
"2.	The powers of the Municipal Mayor to enforce said Resolution.
"3.	To issue an order to the PNP to assist the Municipal Mayor in implementing said Resolution.
"These request are (sic) in connection with our plan to construct a new site for the Rural Health Center of San Luis, Pampanga. However, the designated place thereof is presently being squatted (sic) by a certain Mr. Hermogenes Gozun and inspite of the official notice of Atty. Benalfre S. Galang, our Provincial Legal Officer, and personal request of our Municipal Mayor Jovito C. Bondoc to Mr. Gozun to vacate his (sic) premises, he continues to defy such notices and request to the detriment of the proposed project.
We agree with the recommendation of the Court Administrator.
In this case. respondent judge not only acted without jurisdiction, but in so acting ignored blatantly the basic rules of fair play. Complainant was not notified of nor made party to the petition. 28 The purpose of notice is to afford the parties a chance to be heard. 29 This chance was not given to complainant Gozun, and consequently, because of an arbitrary act of respondent judge, complainant’s house was demolished and he and his family were rendered homeless.
The resolution, suffice it to say, is legally flawed, bore all earmarks and characteristics of an order or judgment disposing of the case. Sans reception of evidence, respondent judge made conclusions of fact, labeling complainant as a "squatter", stating that his house was a nuisance per se. Without citing any law or jurisprudence, respondent judge gave the Municipality a "go signals to demolish complainant’s house even using force.
Undeniably, respondent judge had an inkling of the nature Of the petition. The petition was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 96-001. A special proceeding is a litigated action. Respondent judge must know this. In fact, he named complainant as respondent therein, yet never gave him notice.
His excuse that the resolution was a mere expression of his own legal opinion is an afterthought.
We further note that the resolution was released the same day that the petition was filed. This reinforces complainant’s allegation that respondent judge acted with manifest partiality in favor of the municipal government represented by the mayor.
Early this month, we suspended respondent judge from office for six (6) months without pay. 45 He was disciplined for assigning fifty four (54) cases of violation of P. D. No. 1602 46 to his own court without raffle in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 7, dated September 23, 1974, as amended.
In the present case, respondent’s maleficent acts must be brought to an end. He has shamed the judiciary. He gave judicial imprint to- a procedure decidedly beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the court presided over by him. For this, the Court believes that the penalty of dismissal is warranted.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court hereby orders the DISMISSAL of respondent Judge Daniel B. Liangco, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, and Acting Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Mexico-San Luis, Pampanga, from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accumulated leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to reinstatement or re-employment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
The Court directs the Court Administrator to initiate disbarment proceedings against respondent-Judge for misconduct as a member of the bar within thirty (30) days from finality of this decision.
1.	Filed by Hermogenes T. Gozun on December 26, 1996, Rollo, pp. 1-6.
2.	In Special Proceeding No. 96-001.
3.	Covered by Tax Declaration No. 6030, specifically designated as Lot No. 114 (Rollo, p. 11).
7.	The Sangguniang Bayan corrected itself stating that it "made an honest mistake" in mentioning that the municipal government owned the lot in question based on Tax Dec. No. 1 14, when the truth is that it was based on Tax Dec. No. 6030.
11.	Averred in the complaint, and admitted by respondent judge (Rollo, pp. 4, 48).
14.	Her sister in-law, Paciencia G. Batu and her "comadre", Paula M. Ocampo.
20.	Through Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez.
26.	Such action must be brought before the statute, executive order or regulation is breached.
27.	Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 1997 ed., p. 697; B. P. No. 124, Section 19 (1).
28.	As required in Rule 64, Section 2, 1964 Revised Rules of Court.
29.	Rolando M. Odono v. Judge Porfirio G. Macaraeg; A. M. No. RTJ-00-1542, March 16, 2000.
32.	Januario Lotino v. Judge Froilan N. Hernandez, A. M. No. MTJ-00-1273, June 1, 2000.
33.	Romulo SJ Tolentino v. Judge Alfredo A. Cabral, A. M. No. RTJ-00-1528, March 28, 2000; Carlito C. Aguilar v. Judge Victor A Dalanao, A. M. No. MTJ-00-1275, June 8, 2000.
34.	Article VIII, Section 1, Constitution.
35.	Same rule applies to officials/employees of superior courts and of the Office of the Solicitor General.
36.	Rule 138, Section 35, 1964 Revised Rules of Court.
38.	Northcastle Properties and Estate Corporation v. Acting Presiding Judge Estrellita M. Paas, A. M. No. MTJ-99-1206 October 22, 1999.
39.	Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, A. M. No. RTJ-99-1432, June 21, 2000.
40.	Benalfre J. Galang v. Judge Abelardo H. Santos, A. M. No. MTJ-99-1197, May 26, 1999; Daniel and Suprema Dumo v. Judge Romeo V. Perez, A. M. No. MTJ-00-1242, January 20, 2000; National Bureau of Investigation v. Judge Ramon B. Reyes, A. M. No. MTJ-097-1120, February 21, 2000; Victoria R. Naghan v. Judge Eric Calderon, A. M. No. MTJ-98-1164, February 4, 2000.
41.	Antonio Yu-Asensi v. Judge Franscisco D. Villanueva, A. M. No. MTJ-00-1245, January 19, 2000.
42.	Concerned Employees of the RTC of Dagupan City v. Judge Erna Falloran-Aliposa, A. M. No. RTJ-99-1446, March 9, 2000.
43.	Evan B. Calleja v. Judge Rafael P. Santilices, A. M. No. RTJ-99-1443, March 14, 2000; Rafael J. Dizon, Jr. v. Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, A. M. No. RTJ-97-1376, July 20, 2000.
44.	Amparo S. Farrales v. Judge Ruby B. Camarista, A. M. No. MTJ-99-1184, March 2, 2000.
45.	Re: Procedure Adopted by Judge Daniel Liangco, Executive Judge, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga, Re Raffle of Cases under P. D. 1602, Adm. Matter No. 99-11-158-MTC, August 1, 2000.
47.	Docketed as IPI-99-809 MTJ.
48.	According to an investigation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation, respondent Judge has been delaying the resolution of the Complainant’s cases (for Qualified Theft, Corruption of Minors and Working without a permit) pending before his sala because he was asking for money in exchange for the dismissal of the said cases.
49.	Entitled "National Bureau of Investigation v. Judge Daniel Liangco", docketed as AM-MTJ-99-1235, formerly OCA IPI No. 99-805-MTJ.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.