FACTS: Respondent Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., promulgated a decision in favor of herein complainants Spouses Adriano and Hilda Monterola in a civil case. Due to said decision, the spouse filed a Motion for Execution, since the defendant Spouses Mario & Mavis Delagado did not appeal the decision and the period of appeal had already lapsed.
Judge Caoibes, however, refused to grant the motion for the issuance of the Writ of Execution.
In his comment, respondent judge denied the allegations in the complaint. He made it clear that he would issue the order for the issuance of the Writ of Execution but there was a necessity to determine first the exact amount due the complainants. According to him, this delay could not be considered as dereliction of duty because it was basically due to the sudden resignation of his personnel which gave rise to confusion that affected the disposition of pending matters. Additionally, the Motion for Execution filed by the complainants was a pro forma motion for failing to comply with the requirements of sec.5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as it lacked notice of hearing, and proof of service.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge’s refusal to issue a Writ of Execution was an act unbecoming of a judge.
HELD: Yes. There is no dispute that the decision of respondent had already become final & executory. Execution of the said decision should have issued as a matter of right, in accordance with sec. 1, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
In failing to issue the Writ of Execution in compliance with the clear mandate of the said rule, respondent either deliberately disregarded the rule or demonstrated ignorance thereof. His justification for his admitted delay in the issuance of the writ, namely, pro forma character of the motion for execution, necessity to determine the exact amount and confusion of court records due to the resignation of his key staff are very flimsy. In attempting to hide his ignorance by anchoring his “inaction” on other provisions of the Rules of Court, respondent all the more manifest a lack of familiarity on the harmonious interplay of the provisions of procedural law.
While judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgments, it is highly imperative that they should be conversant with fundamental and basic legal principles in order to merit the confidence of the citizenry.
0 comments:
Post a Comment