Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49859:gr-171698-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:21:41+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 171698 - Maria Sheila Almira T. Viesca v. Hon. Rebecca r. Mariano Pres. Judge etc, et al.
MARIA SHEILA ALMIRA T. VIESCA, Petitioner, v. DAVID GILINSKY,*Respondent.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 19 October 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 90285 which affirmed, with modification, the Order dated 16 June 2005 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136, Makati City, in Civil Case SP Proc. Case No. M-5785.
Unfortunately, the relationship between petitioner and respondent soured and they parted ways during the early part of 2003.
On 6 February 2004, respondent filed a Petition praying that he be entitled to the company of Louis Maxwell at any time of any given day; he be entitled to enjoy the company of Louis Maxwell during weekends and on such occasions the child shall be allowed to spend the night with his father; and he be entitled to enjoy a yearly three-week vacation in any destination with his child.5 The case was raffled off to public respondent's sala and was docketed as SP Proc. Case No. No 5785.
Acting on the joint motion to render judgment based on Compromise Agreement and finding the allegations therein to be of merit, same is hereby given due course.
Judgment is therefore rendered based on the compromise agreement which is quoted hereunder.
DAVID GILINSKY, of legal age, single and residing at Suite 2828, Makati Shang-rila Hotel, Ayala Avenue corner Makati Avenue, Makati City, hereinafter referred to as the "FATHER"
SHEILA T. VIESCA, of legal age, single and a resident of Lot 2, Block 39, Phase 5, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Metro Manila, hereinafter referred to as the "MOTHER".
The mother shall continue to have custody over LOUIS MAXWELL while the father shall exercise visitorial rights as hereunder stated.
Both parties, by these presents, undertake to take every measure necessary, desirable and proper, to consider the best interest of the child at all times, whether with them or away from them. Any act, word or manipulative scheme that may cause the alienation of feelings or loss of respect or that either one or both of them, from either one of the parties, shall never be tolerated.
c. Nothing herein shall prevent the father from visiting the child during reasonable hour in the afternoon of any day of the week at the mother's residence in the presence of the mother or her duly designated representative, and with prior notice to the mother.
One year after the signing of this agreement, the parties shall meet to discuss and resolve the matter pertaining to the entitlement of the father to enjoy a yearly, three-week vacation in any destination with the child.
In the exercise and/or enjoyment of the above rights, the mother shall have the right to designate any person of suitable age to accompany the child.
A. The father shall give monthly financial support of US Dollars Five Hundred (US$500.00) or its Peso equivalent within the first five days of the month effective upon the signing of this agreement. The amount shall be subject to such yearly adjustment of such rate equal to the inflation rate determined by the appropriate government agency.
v. Monthly amortization due as of the date of this Agreement for the Rockwell-Manansala Condominium unit until its full payment and transfer of title, including its association dues and charges. The mother here affirms/confirms she is holding title to the condominium in trust for the child.
The mother shall ensure that all arrears and/or outstanding obligations prior to the execution of this agreement shall have been settled and paid. As soon as the above have been fully complied with, the father shall pay the ensuing monthly amortization.
This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. The parties hereto shall, in good faith, strictly abide by the terms hereof.
The parties agree to submit this written agreement for the court's approval.
Should either one of the parties fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the aggrieved party may seek judicial relief against the erring party and apply with the proper court for a writ of execution against said erring party to enforce his or her obligations imposed in this Agreement. The offending party shall pay for the cost of litigation, attorney's fees, other expenses, and interest incurred in such application for a writ of execution.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our respective signatures on the date and place hereinabove mentioned.
Respondent's Urgent Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution was scheduled to be heard on 8 April 2005. Notice thereof was received by petitioner's counsel on 5 April 2005.9 On 7 April 2005, petitioner's counsel filed a Manifestation10 requesting that the hearing on said motion be reset, as he had to be in Balanga, Bataan on the date and time of the scheduled hearing. He also prayed that he be given a period of seven days within which to file his Comment/Opposition to respondent's Urgent Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution.
The Court heard the arguments raised by the counsel for the [herein petitioner] and the reply/comment thereto made by the counsel for the [herein respondent]. The [herein petitioner] thru counsel imposed certain conditions if ever the visitorial rights of the [herein respondent] would be granted. Though [herein petitioners] wished that those conditions be contained in an affidavit, which to the mind of the court would only delay the resolution of the motion, the court thereupon ordered that the statement of the petitioner be made orally but under oath, thus, [herein respondent] was placed in the witness stand.
Thereafter, the court ruled to deny the motion to quash the writ of execution filed by [herein petitioner] thru counsel for lack of merit and grant the prayer of the [herein respondent] that he be allowed to exercise his visitorial rights over the minor LUIS MAXWELL VIESCA today under the conditions imposed by the [herein petitioner], some of which are contained in the compromise agreement to which [herein respondent] promised under oath to obey the same (sic).
3. [Herein petitioner] shall exercise her right to designate any person of suitable age to accompany the child whenever [herein respondent] would exercise his visitorial right.
[Herein Petitioner] is commanded to bring the minor child LUIS MAXWELL VIESCA to court not later than 3:00 o'clock this afternoon, to be pick-up (sic) by the [herein private respondent], upon the service of his order to the [herein petitioner] by the sheriff of this court.
Subsequently, respondent filed a Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Temporary Relief of Support dated 25 April 200519 to which petitioner filed her Comment20 as ordered by the trial court. In their pleadings, the parties presented disparate accounts of what transpired after the hearing on 15 April 2005.
3. At 3:00 o'clock p.m. of said afternoon, [herein respondent], together with undersigned counsel, promptly went to the court to await the arrival of his son, Louis Maxwell.
4. At or about 4:00 o'clock, This Court's sheriff informed undersigned counsel that he had just served a copy of the order upon the adverse counsel.
5. Undersigned counsel immediately conferred with Atty. E. Perez, [herein petitioner's] counsel, to arrange the implementation of the above-quoted Order. Atty. Perez informed undersigned of his client's inability to comply with the 3:00 o'clock mandate given that the Order was served to her only at 3:25 p.m., to which the undersigned counsel responded by saying that [herein petitioner] could still have Louis Maxwell brought to court even after the designated time.
6. Despite the clear and unequivocal tenor of This Court's Order, Atty. Perez informed the undersigned counsel that since [herein petitioner] was still at work, his client could only bring the child at the lobby of Shangri-la hotel, Makati, at around 8:00 o'clock p.m. of that day.
Undersigned counsel immediately rejected the proposed arrangement for the same does not only run counter to the express mandate of This Court's Order but more importantly would deprive [respondent] of spending quality time with his son - the raisaon d etre of the stipulation in the Compromise Agreement providing an overnight stay. Undersigned counsel, moreover, explained that 8:00 o'clock p.m. is unreasonable and oppressive, not for [herein respondent] but more for the child, as the proposed time is the expected bedtime of three-year olds.
The adverse counsel, however, remained insistent that the child could only be brought by the [herein petitioner] at 8:00 o'clock p.m. and intimated that since the court order came as a "surprise" and was served at past 3:00 p.m., [herein respondent] should not expect [herein petitioner] to alter her schedule at such short notice.
was (sic) unaffected by [herein respondent's] earnest desire to spend quality time with his son.
7. Albeit the representation [herein petitioner's] counsel that his client committed to bring the child at 8:00 o'clock at Shangri-la, Makati, [herein petitioner] arrived at past 9:00 o'clock p.m. [Herein petitioner] not only brought the child but likewise brought with her the child's grandmother (herein petitioner's mother) and several of her friends. And instead of allowing only one person to act as guardian over Louis Maxwell, [herein petitioner] insisted on having both herself and her mother accompany Louis during his overnight stay with [herein respondent]. [Herein respondent] had no choice but to accede to such demand lest he be deprived once more of the enjoyment of his right.
"3. At 3:00 o'clock p.m. of said afternoon, [herein respondent], together with undersigned counsel, promptly went to the court to await the arrival of his son, Louis Maxwell."
"5. Undersigned counsel received a copy of the Order dated 15 April 2005 only at 4:15 p.m. of that same day, hence, it was impossible for [herein petitioner] to comply with Order commanding her to bring the child "to court not later than 3:00 o'clock this afternoon." Be that as it may, counsel immediately got in touch with [herein petitioner] to advise her to comply with the Order but [herein petitioner] stated she could not leave her office immediately because of prior commitment and instead suggested that she would bring the child to [herein respondent] Shangrila Hotel resident in the evening. Hereon counsel relayed the information/suggestion to [herein respondent's] counsel and after a series of calls, an arrangement was made for the evening. What actually happened that evening, the parties had different accounts.
A. She arrived late at little past 9:00 o'clock because of heavy traffic. It was a Friday, pay day and last day for income tax payment.
b. To direct the [herein petitioner] pay (sic) the amount of P295,000.00, as and by way of attorney's fees.
In her Comment,27 petitioner asserted that Judge Mariano should no longer rule on respondent's motion, since there was a pending motion for her to inhibit. She likewise took the opportunity to refute respondent's allegations with regard to her purported failure to observe the terms of the Compromise Judgment. Petitioner claimed that on 14 May 2005, Louis Maxwell fell sick and so she was unable to bring him to private respondent. In fact, petitioner's counsel even sent a letter dated 16 May 2005 to respondent's lawyer explaining her "version of the story."28 She also posed objection to respondent's plea that Louis Maxwell be brought either to the trial court or to him since the child was still sick, and taking him out of the house would only worsen his condition. Moreover, petitioner argued that to grant respondent's prayer would contravene the provisions of the Compromise Judgment under which his entitlement to the company of his son every weekend is a separate and distinct term from his right to spend a night with the child. She also claimed that as agreed upon, respondent should be the one to pick up the child and to return him to her. Finally, petitioner assailed respondent's prayer for attorney's fees for lack of basis.
b. Pending the conclusion of the agreement, the child will be fetched from the Petitioner's residence at 6 o'clock p.m. and will be brought back at 9 o'clock a.m. the following day, effective May 20-21 and May 27-28.
c. Private Respondent is to surrender his passport during these visits.
a) To allow (him) to have the company of his son on Wednesday, June 1, 2005, beginning 6:00 p.m. up to 9:00 a.m. of the following day. For this purpose, for this Court to further allow (him) to fetch his son at [herein petitioner's] residence and bring him back at [herein petitioner's] abode not later than 9:00 a.m. of the following day.
b) To designate the hours of 6:00 p.m. of any given Friday to 9:00 a.m. of the following day, as the regular day and hours at which the [herein respondent] can enjoy the company of his son pursuant to Clause II of the Compromise Judgment dated May 12, 2004.
c) To designate the Court Sheriff and/or any other court officer to act as the accompanying guardian of Louis Maxwell Viesca Gilinsky during the implementation of the prayed for relief under paragraph (a) hereof and of the sleep-over provision mentioned in Clause II of the Compromise Judgment.
d) To command [herein petitioner] to pay the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), as and by way of cost of litigation, attorney's fees and other expenses pursuant to Clause V of the Compromise Judgment.
Respondent requested that his Very Urgent Motion to Enforce and Enjoy Visitorial Rights be heard on 1 June 2005 notwithstanding the three-day notice rule required under the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as he was about to go on a two-week business trip on 3 June 2005.
Set for today's hearing is the Very Urgent Motion to Enforce and Enjoy Visitorial Rights filed by the [herein respondent] and the Comment thereto filed by the [herein petitioner]. The Court heard the arguments between the parties accusing each other of violation of the compromise agreement.
The [herein respondent] wanted to present testimonial evidence to prove his allegation in the motion but which was denied by the Court for lack of material time.
The Court likewise reminded the parties the fact that the [herein respondent] surrenders his passport everytime he exercises his visitorial right was voluntary on his part and not as part of the compromise agreement.
WHEREFORE, the court ruled that the [herein respondent] can exercise his visitorial right today at 6:00 o'clock in the evening to be accompanied by the sheriff of this court. If the [herein petitioner] is not available nor the grandmother to accompany the minor child, the court instructed the [herein petitioner] to appoint another person who can accompany the child so as not to avoid any delay in fetching the minor child. Likewise the motion was reset to July 1, 2005, at 10:30 o'clock in the morning.
Considering that the very urgent motion filed by the [herein respondent] was commented or objected to by the [herein petitioner's] counsel, let the [herein respondent], thru counsel file a reply within five (5) days from receipt of this Order and the [herein petitioner] is given the same period of time from receipt of the reply within which to file a rejoinder, if she so desires.
Given in open court, this 1st day of June 2005, at Makati City.
Before the Court is the Very Urgent Motion to Enforce and Enjoy Visitorial Rights filed by the [herein respondent] thru counsel, alleging among others, that [herein petitioner] had once again proven herself to be unfaithful to her promises and representations, citing the incident which happened on 27 May 2005, the scheduled meeting of the [herein respondent] and his son. On the said date, [herein petitioner's] grandmother (sic) became sick, however, the latter refused the offer of the petitioner to get medical help. Said alleged illness became more doubtful when the grandmother insisted on being well enough to push through with the visitation but at 9:00 o'clock in the evening instead of 6:00 o'clock in the evening, as previously agreed upon by the parties.
On the Comment filed by the [herein petitioner], she stated that the present motion should be denied because it violates the three-day notice rule and there is no good cause to set the hearing on shorter notice.
We shall now rule on the motion.
Under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court and following the pronouncements by the High Court in the cases of Cledera, et al. v. Sarmiento, et al 39 SCRA 552; Estipora v. Navarro, 69 SCRA 285, the motion under consideration should have been dismissed ourtright, however, the above-cited provision or the so-called three-day notice rule is not absolute. Like any other rule, it admits of exception, i.e. urgent motions (Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1, Regalado). Moreover, in the interest of substantial justice, this Court finds it imperative and necessary to brush-aside any technicality since the issue involved herein is basically the natural right of a father to enjoy the company and presence of his beloved son. To the mind of the Court, the best and most applicable law in cases of this nature is the conscience of untroubled and unprejudiced majesty. Finally, the right of custody accorded to parents' springs from the exercise of parental authority (Santos Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 242 SCRA 407). Hence, the motion under consideration is hereby given due course.
3. Pay the [herein respondent] the amount of Thirty-Thousand Pesos (Php 30,000.00), as and by way of cost of litigation, attorney's fees and other expenses pursuant to Clause V of the Compromise Agreement.
As regards the prayer under paragraph (a) of the motion, the same is denied for being moot and academic.
Given in Chambers this 16th June 2005, Makati City.
Petitioner also insisted that Judge Mariano should desist from further hearing the case below.
A. THE TRIAL COURT AMENDED OR ALTERED THE TERMS OF THE COMPROMISE JUDGMENT WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF BOTH PARTIES THERETO.
Unfortunately in the case before us, the compromise agreement entered into between the parties fell way short of its objective of finally putting an end to their dispute. The sheer number of incidents which cropped up shortly after the trial court's approval of the compromise agreement reveals that the compromise judgment failed to bring peace to the parties. Interestingly enough, the only points of disagreement are Clause II(b) of the Compromise Judgment which pertains to the overnight visits of Louis Maxwell with respondent and the last paragraph of the same clause regarding the appointment of the child's accompanying guardian.
Clause II(b) states that "(t)he child shall be allowed to spend the night with the father once a week." The sentence seems simple enough to be understood by a layman. Petitioner claims that the parties did not specify the day and time of the week when private respondent could enjoy the overnight company of Louis Maxwell in order to give the parties "some flexibility" and to give them the opportunity to arrange the schedule themselves.49 But the parties have overstretched the indeterminate language of said provision. Indeed, the parties have been at odds over the interpretation and implementation of this plain provision of the Compromise Judgment and this could have caused much confusion in the mind of the young Louis Maxwell who had to be brought from one place to another at such unholy hours of the night only to be awakened from deep slumber in the early hours of the morning to be taken to another place. And yet, all of these could have been avoided had the parties opted to be more specific in their agreement. The question thus becomes: can the trial court modify, by motion of one of the parties, a Compromise Judgment? We hold in the negative.
To reiterate, a compromise judgment has the force of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery50 which private respondent does not allege in this case.
Resultantly, a remand of this case is necessary to allow the parties themselves to resolve the matter regarding the implementation of Clause II(b) of the Compromise Judgment. In this regard, the rule on immutability for purposes of execution does not attach to a judgment that is materially equivocal or which suffers from either patent or latent ambiguity.55 To obviate further discord between them and to preclude their recourse to the trial court every time one of them perceives a violation committed by the other of Clause II(b) of the Compromise Judgment, we direct the trial court to be on guard and ensure that the parties would lay out in concrete, specific details the terms of their agreement as to this specific matter as well of the appointment of Louis Maxwell's accompanying guardian.
Turning now to the question of whether Judge Mariano should inhibit herself from the case, we rule in favor of respondent.
SECTION 1. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. (Emphasis supplied).
This Court has ruled that to disqualify or not to disqualify is a matter of conscience and is addressed primarily to the sense of fairness and justice of the judge concerned.56 Said discretion is granted to judges, since they are in the better position to determine the issue of voluntary inhibition, as they are the ones who directly deal with the parties in their courtrooms.57 The test that must be applied in questions involving the propriety of the denial of a motion to inhibit is whether the movant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial.58 In this case, we hold that petitioner was not deprived of her day in court, for she was able to file her comments on and/or objections to the motions filed by private respondent. She, therefore, was able to ventilate her positions on the issues brought before the trial court.
As regards Judge Mariano's remark regarding petitioner's obstinacy, we agree with private respondent that the same is not a sufficient ground for public respondent to inhibit herself. Indeed, "(o)pinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings, as long as they are based on the evidence presented and conduct observed by the judge, even if found later on to be erroneous, do not prove personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge."59 Moreover, a single comment uttered by the public respondent in the course of the proceedings should not be taken to be generally illustrative of her conduct in hearing and determining the outcome of the entire case. Such isolated remark should not be taken to mean that public respondent has crossed the line separating cold impartiality from unbridled bias.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90285 dated 19 October 2005, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as it affirmed the Order dated 16 June 2005 of the RTC, Branch 136, Makati City in SP Proc. Case No. M-5785, amending Clause II(b) of the Compromise Judgment and the last paragraph of Clause II. Petitioner's prayer, however, that Judge Rebecca Mariano of the RTC, Branch 136, Makati City, be directed to inhibit herself from hearing said case is DENIED.
Judge Mariano is ordered to hold further proceedings to allow the parties to agree SPECIFICALLY and DEFINITIVELY on how the overnight visits of Louis Maxwell with respondent and the appointment of said child's accompanying guardian would be implemented within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. No costs.
SEC. 4. - Contents of petition. - The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42.
Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring; rollo, pp. 32-42.
5 CA rollo, pp. 36-37.
8 CA rollo, pp. 60-61.
12 Per Sheriff's Report dated 11 April 2005; id. at 262.
18 Id. at 8-9 citing TSN, 15 April 2005, p. 48.
20 CA rollo, pp. 104-111.
27 CA rollo, pp. 108-111.
30 Id. at 373; In her Reply dated 10 October 2006, petitioner contends that she never agreed to the withdrawal of her Reiterative Motion to Inhibit.
31 CA rollo, p. 126.
37 CA rollo, pp. 313-314.
Art. 2037. A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise.
40 Citing Philippine Bank of Communications v. Echiverri, G.R. No. L 41795, 29 August 1980, 99 SCRA 508, 527.
44 David v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97240, 16 October 1992, 214 SCRA 644, 650.
45 Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 370 Phil. 150, 163 (1999).
46 Manila International Airport Authority(MIAA) v. ALA Industries Corporation, G.R. No. 147349, 13 February 2004, 422 SCRA 603, 611.
47 Martir v. Verano, G.R. No. 170395, 28 July 2006, 497 SCRA 120, 126-127.
The Court shall endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise.
50 Binamira v. Ogan-Occena, G.R. No. L-27777, 23 March 1987, 148 SCRA 677, 683.
51 Philippine Bank of Communications v. Echiverri, supra note 40 at 527.
52 Municipal Board of Cabanatuan City v. Samahang Magsasaka, Inc., G.R. No. L-25818, 25 February 1975, 62 SCRA 435, 438-439.
53 De Guia v. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. 51143, 22 March 1990, 183 SCRA 480, 484.
54 G.R. No. L-39800, 27 June 1975, 64 SCRA 480, 487.
56 Flores v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 992, 1019 (1996).
57 People v. Ong, G.R. NOS. 162130-39, 5 May 2006, 489 SCRA 679, 687.
58 Soriano v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 226, 250 (2001).
59 Rollo, p. 392 citing Seveses v. Court of Appeals, 375 Phil. 64, 73 (1999).

References: v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

Art. 2037
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.