Coronel v. Danan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Trinidad Sunglao vda. de Coronel charged respondent Judge Conrado T. Danan with grave abuse of discretion for issuing a writ of demolition on June 16, 1989, to enforce a decision in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 2551). The writ was issued not upon motion of the deceased plaintiff, Salud Romero, but upon motion of Tarcila Romero, Salud's alleged successor-in-interest, who had not formally substituted the deceased. Complainant also charged Deputy Sheriff Carlos Puno for implementing the writ. Procedural History: The ejectment case originated from a compromise agreement approved by the respondent Judge on July 19, 1983, wherein both parties agreed to demolish encroaching portions of their houses. A writ of execution was issued on May 9, 1986, and served on complainant, giving her two weeks to remove the structure. Salud Romero died on December 28, 1986. Tarcila Romero, claiming to be the successor-in-interest, pursued the motion for demolition. The respondent Judge issued a resolution on May 29, 1989, directing the issuance of a writ of demolition, which was subsequently issued on June 16, 1989, and implemented by respondent sheriff. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found no grave abuse of discretion by the judge in issuing the writ but faulted him for not requiring proper substitution of parties. The OCA recommended a severe reprimand for the judge and dismissal of the case against the sheriff. The Petition: Complainant charged the respondent Judge with grave abuse of discretion for knowingly rendering an unjust order and the respondent Sheriff for implementing it. The Supreme Court reviewed the OCA's findings and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of demolition. Whether the respondent Sheriff committed any impropriety in implementing the writ of demolition. Whether the respondent Judge should have voluntarily inhibited himself due to his relationship with Tarcila Romero.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent Judge guilty of grave abuse of authority and imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with a warning. The case against the respondent Deputy Sheriff was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent Judge's grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of authority. The Court emphasized that the decision approving the compromise agreement was immediately executory and could be enforced by motion within five years from July 19, 1983. A writ of demolition was issued on June 16, 1989, which was more than five years after the finality of the judgment, meaning the trial court had lost its authority to enforce its judgment by a mere motion. Furthermore, the plaintiff, Salud Romero, died on December 28, 1986, and was not substituted by her legal representative as required by Section 17, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. The issuance of the writ by the respondent Judge, upon the solicitation of Tarcila Romero who had not yet acquired legal standing, despite the court having lost its authority to enforce the decision by motion and the lack of substitution, constituted grave abuse of authority. The Court also noted that the structure to be demolished was not the same structure earmarked for removal under the compromise agreement. If the Judge was aware of these rules, he deliberately ignored them to benefit his 'comadre'; if he was unaware, it still demonstrated a lack of due care in the performance of his functions. The Court found that the respondent Judge violated Canons 3 and 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. On the issue of the respondent Sheriff's impropriety: The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's finding that there was no basis for the charges against Deputy Sheriff Carlos Puno. The Court held that the sheriff merely enforced and implemented the writ of demolition, which, to him, had been validly issued. His actions were solely in accordance with the expressed order of the court, and he did not commit acts of partiality. Therefore, the case against him was dismissed for lack of merit. On the issue of the respondent Judge's voluntary inhibition: The Supreme Court acknowledged that the respondent Judge's relationship with Tarcila Romero as a "compadre" was not a ground for mandatory disqualification under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court. However, the Court noted that a judge may voluntarily inhibit himself for just or valid reasons. While the relationship per se was not raised before the judge acted on the motion, the Court considered the influence of such a relationship in connection with his actuations relative to the issuance of the writ of demolition. The OCA opined that this relationship was a compelling reason for the judge to have voluntarily inhibited himself. The Supreme Court, however, stated that it could not hold him liable for indiscretion in not inhibiting himself from resolving the motion, as the relationship was not raised as an issue prior to his action. Nevertheless, the Court considered the influence of this relationship in his subsequent actions regarding the writ of demolition, which ultimately led to the finding of grave abuse of authority.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits grave abuse of authority in issuing a writ of demolition when the motion for its issuance is filed by a party who has not formally substituted the deceased plaintiff, and when the court has lost its authority to enforce its judgment by a mere motion due to the lapse of the five-year period from finality of judgment.