Barbaso v. Cabasag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Narciso P. Barbaso filed a verified complaint against Municipal Judge Nicomedes A. Cabasag for gross ignorance of the law and serious misconduct. The complainant alleged that the respondent judge committed a grave error of law by declaring defendants in default in Civil Case No. 17, despite an answer with a counterclaim having been filed within the reglementary period. The respondent judge proceeded to receive evidence ex-parte and rendered judgment the following day, awarding reliefs to the plaintiffs. The defendants' answer, mailed earlier, was received by the respondent judge five days after the judgment. Complainant also averred that the respondent judge scolded him in open court in a disrespectful and violent manner, constituting serious misconduct. Procedural History: The Department of Justice, in a 5th Indorsement dated December 5, 1972, reproduced the facts of the case. The case was set for hearing on September 13, 1972, but was postponed to September 23, 1972, upon the respondent's motion. Subsequently, on September 16, 1972, a joint motion to withdraw the case was filed by both the complainant and the respondent, stating that the filing of the case was due to a misunderstanding and that both parties acted in good faith. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Narciso P. Barbaso against Municipal Judge Nicomedes A. Cabasag, alleging gross ignorance of the law and serious misconduct. The core of the complaint revolved around the judge's alleged erroneous declaration of default and subsequent ex-parte reception of evidence, as well as alleged misconduct in scolding the complainant in open court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law in declaring the defendants in default and proceeding ex-parte. Whether the respondent judge was guilty of serious misconduct for allegedly scolding the complainant in open court.
Ruling
The administrative case against the respondent judge is DISMISSED. WHEREFORE, in view of the desistance of complainant, this Department concurs in the recommendation of the investigating Judge dismissing this case. We fully concur with the Department's recommendation for the following reasons: 1. The Joint Motion to withdraw this administrative case, dated September 16, 1972, signed by complainant and respondent, confirmed that the questioned judgment by default in Civil Case No. 17 was reconsidered after the attendant circumstances were viewed upon, and a new and distinct judgment was rendered on September 4, 1972. This submission, therefore, set aside the previous judgment by default now the subject of this complaint. 2. In the same joint motion to withdraw the case, it was stated that the complainant and respondent found out that there was a sort of misunderstanding as to their respective motives during the discussion of the issues involved, and after hearing each other's views, the parties have come to realize that each was acting in good faith, without any malice and ill-will. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross ignorance of the law regarding the default order: The Court noted that the filing of the answer by mail within the reglementary period, without a motion for postponement of the scheduled hearing, did not excuse the non-appearance of the complainant and his clients. However, the primary basis for dismissal was the joint motion to withdraw the case. This motion confirmed that the questioned judgment by default was reconsidered, and a new and distinct judgment was rendered on September 4, 1972, thereby setting aside the original judgment by default that was the subject of the complaint. This subsequent action by the respondent judge effectively cured any alleged error in the initial default order. On the issue of serious misconduct: The respondent judge denied the charge of mercilessly scolding the complainant in open court. He alleged that he merely asked the complainant in a conversational tone why he failed to notify the court of his non-appearance, even with only a telegraphic motion. The joint motion to withdraw the case also stated that the parties realized they both acted in good faith, without malice and ill-will, and that the filing of the case was due to a misunderstanding. The Court found that the respondent judge had no intent to downgrade the honor or prestige of the complainant, and what transpired was merely an exchange of comments on the issues involved. Therefore, the charge of serious misconduct was not sufficiently substantiated to warrant disciplinary action, especially in light of the parties' reconciliation and mutual acknowledgment of good faith.
Main Doctrine
An administrative case filed against a municipal judge for alleged gross ignorance of the law and serious misconduct can be dismissed when the complainant and respondent jointly move for its withdrawal, attesting that the case stemmed from a misunderstanding and that both parties acted in good faith. This is particularly true when the questioned judgment, which was the subject of the complaint, was subsequently reconsidered and a new judgment was rendered, effectively setting aside the original ruling.