Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49754:am-rtj-07-2047-2007&catid=1494&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:26:15+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2047 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1786-RTJ) and A.M. No. RTJ-07-2048 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1798-RTJ) - Russel Esteva Coronado v. Judge Eddie R. Rojas etc.
RUSSEL ESTEVA CORONADO, Complainant, v. JUDGE EDDIE R. ROJAS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, General Santos City, Respondent.
ALFREDO S. CAPISIN, HERMELO O. LATOJA, JAMES D. CATALAN, ANECITO TAN, JR., ARNEL CALVO, RICARDO PEPITO, and EVELYN ROSALES, Complainants, v. JUDGE EDDIE R. ROJAS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, General Santos City, Respondent.
The complainants prevailed before the HLURB,2 which later issued a Writ of Execution3 against E.B. Villarosa. Consequently, Atty. Elmer D. Lastimosa and Ramon A. Castillo, Clerk of Court VI and Sheriff IV, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, garnished all money, deposits, and interests, including all monthly payments owed by the residents of Gensanville Subdivision to E.B. Villarosa, in satisfaction of the writ of execution. The Notice of Garnishment4 specifically enjoined all concerned parties to pay their water bills to the trial court until full satisfaction of the writ.
E.B. Villarosa later filed a Complaint5 for injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Clerk of Court and the Sheriff of the RTC of General Santos City. It averred that the monthly water bills owed by the homeowners of Gensanville Subdivision do not wholly accrue to the benefit of E.B. Villarosa, but part thereof also belongs to the employees of the latter, the suppliers of electricity necessary to operate the water system, the unpaid sellers of machineries, materials, and supplies for the operations, and to the government in the form of taxes. Allegedly, if the payments were garnished, E.B. Villarosa would be deprived of important resources to operate the water system in the subdivision that would eventually lead to cessation of operations. E.B. Villarosa would then lose its contractual right to operate the water system and supply the homeowners the water they need.
In an Order6 dated May 12, 2003, Vice-Executive Judge Antonio C. Lubao noted without action the motion for issuance of a 72-hour TRO since the HLURB is a co-ordinate body of the court and advised E.B. Villarosa to seek the injunctive order from the appellate courts.
These acts of Judge Rojas spawned these two administrative cases.
In his Comment11 on the two complaints, Judge Rojas contends that the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction were regularly issued after a judicious examination of the complaint. He claims that what was restrained was neither the writ of execution nor the notice of garnishment themselves but merely the manner by which the HLURB decisions were being executed. Agreeing with the arguments raised by E.B. Villarosa, Judge Rojas believes that, without the injunction, E.B. Villarosa will suffer irreparable injury before the claims of the parties can be thoroughly investigated and adjudicated, and thus, he did not interfere with the Order of Vice-Executive Judge Lubao. He further says that granting injunctive relief to E.B. Villarosa neither shows his bias nor his abuse of authority in favor of the latter, absent any proof of bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. Lastly, he alleges that the remedy of the complainants is not an administrative complaint but other judicial remedies.
On November 26, 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a Report12 finding Judge Rojas administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.
The OCA held that the HLURB retained its jurisdiction over the case, and if irregularities attended the manner in which the writ of execution was implemented, they should be referred to the same agency. It said that Judge Rojas gravely abused his authority when he took cognizance of Civil Case No. 7234 and issued the TRO and the injunctive writ, especially because HLURB exercises quasi-judicial functions and is co-equal with the RTC.
Further, the complainants, being the prevailing party before the HLURB, should have been given their day in court before the TRO and the injunction were issued. The OCA noted that Judge Rojas even advised the counsel of E.B. Villarosa during the hearing of May 15, 2003 to implead the real parties-in-interest. The OCA found this failure on the part of Judge Rojas violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of the right of the complainants to due process.
Thus, the OCA recommended that Judge Rojas be fined P10,000.00, with a stern warning of a more severe penalty should he commit a similar offense in the future.
We agree with the findings of the OCA with respect to Judge Rojas' administrative liability, but hold that the recommended fine is too light a penalty in light of his previous infraction as a member of the Judiciary.
ATTY. ALCONERA: We only assail the very account of the Sheriff.
COURT: But you should implead the prevailing party. The court is inclined to give 72 hours TRO but you should implead the prevailing party because usually court personnel acted as ministerial duty only.
COURT: Because Judge Lubao did not take action because according to him, the decision that should not be subject for a TRO. Perhaps not for the court to stop the implementation but only the garnishment must be done belonging to the losing party but only mentioned as borne out and alleged in the complaint that the fund is not solely owned by the Villarosa.
ATTY. LASTIMOSA: But these are credits which might belong to the developer and this can be subjected to the garnishment.
COURT: But according to the plaintiff, some of the payment of the employees and payment for the electricity.
ATTY. ALCONERA: In fact, the claims of the workers are superior to those of the judgment creditors. The listing of the unpaid sellers, the workers below, they are the judgment creditors.
COURT: I will issue a 72-hours (sic) TRO then I will require the defendants to show cause why the 72 hours will not be extended and perhaps, to enlighten the court by submitting to a simultaneous memorandum.
Finally, Judge Rojas disregarded the fact that the HLURB is a quasi-judicial agency, co-equal with the RTC. The Order dated May 12, 2003 of Vice-Executive Judge Lubao advising E.B. Villarosa to seek injunctive relief from the appellate courts should have placed Judge Rojas on notice.
Truly, Judge Rojas acted beyond his judicial authority when he proceeded to enjoin the final and executory decision of the HLURB. His proffered excuse that the TRO and the writ of injunction he issued were not directed against the HLURB's writ of execution but only against the manner of its execution, is too shallow and facetious. He cannot feign ignorance that the effect of the injunctive writ was to freeze the enforcement of the writ of execution, thus frustrating the lawful order of the HLURB, a co-equal body.
This Court also notes that in Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Rojas, RTC, Branch 39, Polomolok, South Cotabato in Crim. Case No. 09-5668,25 Judge Rojas was already fined P10,000.00 for failure to inhibit himself for a period of almost one-and-a-half years in a criminal case where he previously appeared as public prosecutor, contrary to the mandatory norm of impartiality. He presided in the said case without the written consent of all parties in interest, in violation of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. In that case, he was also sternly warned that the commission of the same or a similar breach would merit a higher penalty.
A magistrate like Judge Rojas owes to the public and to this Court the duty to be proficient in the law. He is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence.28 Judges must not only render just, correct, and impartial decisions, resolutions, and orders, but must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality, and integrity, for good judges are men who have a mastery of the principles of law and who discharge their duties in accordance with law.29 In this regard, Judge Rojas has twice failed.
Inasmuch as this case constitutes Judge Rojas' second infraction, a suspension of three (3) months without salary and benefits is warranted.
WHEREFORE, Judge Rojas of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, General Santos City, for gross ignorance of the law, is hereby imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION without salaries and other benefits for a period of three (3) months, with a STERN WARNING that the commission in the future of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
1 Decision dated June 24, 1998; rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2047), pp. 11-23.
2 Decision dated September 16, 2002; id. at 25-28.
3 Writ of Execution dated April 2, 2003; id. at 9-10; rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2048), pp. 7-8.
4 Notice of Garnishment dated April 25, 2003; rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2047), p. 8.
5 Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2047), pp. 29-35.
6 Id. at 59; rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2048), p. 9.
7 Id. at 6-7; id. at 10-11.
8 Id. at 62-64; id. at 27-29.
9 Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2047), pp. 2-5.
10 Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2048), pp. 1-6.
11 Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2047), pp. 45-51.
13 SEC. 2. Parties-in-interest. - A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.
SEC. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
14 TSN, May 15, 2003, pp. 6-10; rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2048), pp. 17-21.
15 Order dated May 15, 2003, rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2047), pp. 6-7.
16 Order dated June 12, 2003, id. at 62-64.
17 Aron v. Realon, G.R. No. 159156, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 372, 389 (2005); Quiombing v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93010, August 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 325, 330; Seno v. Mangubat, No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156 SCRA 113, 119; see also Kho v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 53630, September 30, 1992, 214 SCRA 329, 336-337; Lozano v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 49470, April 8, 1991, 195 SCRA 681, 690.
18 Aron v. Realon, id.; Tanhu v. Ramolete, 160 Phil. 1101, 1121 (1975); see also Alabang Development Corp. v. Valenzuela, 201 Phil. 727, 737 (1982); Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45168, September 25, 1979, 93 SCRA 238, 247.
19 Rules of Court, Rule 16, Section 1(g).
20 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 1; Bacelonia v. Court of Appeals, 445 Phil. 300, 310 (2003).
21 Macias v. Macias, 457 Phil. 463, 471 (2003).
22 P.D. No. 1344, Section 1.
23 P.D. No. 1344, Section 2.
24 Realty Exchange Venture Corporation v. Sendino, G.R. No. 109703, July 5, 1994, 233 SCRA 665.
25 A.M. No. 98-6-185-RTC, October 30, 1998, 298 SCRA 306.
26 Sevilla v. Quintin, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1603, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 10, 20; Inoturan v. Limsiaco, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362, May 6, 2005, 458 SCRA 48, 56; Barredo-Fuentes v. Albarracin, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1587, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 120, 128; SesbreÃ±o v. Aglugub, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1581, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 365, 376; Tan v. Adre, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 145, 152.
27 Officers and Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Baguio-Benguet Chapter v. Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1691, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 87, 101; Uy v. Dizon-Capulong, A.M. No. RTJ-91-766, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 87, 95.
28 Alconera v. Majaducon, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1313, April 27, 2005, 457 SCRA 378, 387; Lim v. Dumlao, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1556, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 196, 203.
29 Canon 3, Sections 1 & 2, Code of Judicial Conduct, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC; Heirs of the Late Justice Jose B.L. Reyes v. Demetria, 425 Phil. 1, 18 (2002).
30 Lumabas v. Banzon, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1421, August 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 257, 271; Dantes v. Caguioa, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1919, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 236, 246-247.

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