Sy v. Habacon-Garayblas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Elpidio Sy, representative of System Realty Development Corporation, charged Judge Emelita Habacon-Garayblas with gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. This stemmed from Civil Case No. 131430-CV, an ejectment case where the respondent judge issued a decision in favor of the plaintiff and a writ of execution. Subsequently, the respondent judge issued an order to hold in abeyance the implementation of the writ of execution based on an unverified manifestation by Dr. Peter B. Flores, who claimed to be the occupant of the premises. The complainant alleged that the respondent judge maliciously refused to lift the order despite several motions and a petition for mandamus filed with the Regional Trial Court. Procedural History: The respondent judge explained that her actions were to judiciously resolve issues concerning Dr. Flores's claim and the enforceability of the writ against him. She issued an order setting the manifestation for hearing and directing the sheriff to hold the writ in abeyance. The complainant then filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court, which ordered the elevation of the case records. The complainant later filed a motion for withdrawal of the mandamus petition, which remained unacted upon, and the records were not returned to the respondent's sala. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and knowingly rendered an unjust judgment by issuing an order to hold in abeyance the implementation of a writ of execution. Whether the respondent judge's reliance on an unverified manifestation from a third-party claimant was proper. Whether the respondent judge's failure to act on motions to lift the suspension order was justified.
Ruling
The complaint against the respondent judge is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The respondent judge is DIRECTED to take action and resolve WITH DISPATCH the cases subject of this complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of suspending the writ of execution: The Court found the respondent's explanation satisfactory. The suspension of the writ of execution was justified under the doctrine laid down in Sta. Ana v. Suñga. This doctrine allows for a hearing when an actual possessor claims rights as a third party or stranger to the ejectment case, or when their bona fide possession is disputed, or when it is alleged that the possession was taken in connivance with the defeated litigant to frustrate the judgment. In such events, the proper procedure is to order a hearing to determine the matter of possession and then deny or accede to the enforcement of the writ. The Court emphasized that in the absence of such a hearing or similar proceeding, every person in actual possession has a right to be respected therein, and their ejectment would constitute a deprivation of a property right without due process of law. On the reliance on an unverified manifestation: The Court held that the fact that the manifestation filed by Dr. Flores was unverified does not militate against the respondent judge taking cognizance thereof. The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading even if unverified, if the attending circumstances warrant dispensing with strict compliance in order to serve the ends of justice. This principle was supported by the ruling in Villarica v. Court of Appeals. On the failure to act on motions to lift the suspension order: The Court found that the complainant could not fault the respondent judge for not resolving the several motions to lift the questioned order. The respondent judge could not take action on these motions because the complainant filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court to compel the respondent judge to lift the questioned order. As a consequence of this filing, the records of the case were elevated to the Regional Trial Court, thus removing them from the respondent judge's possession and preventing her from acting on the motions.
Main Doctrine
A judge's act of suspending the implementation of a writ of execution to allow for a hearing on a third-party claim is justified, especially when the claim raises issues of possession and potential deprivation of property without due process. The requirement of verification in a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional, and may be dispensed with in the interest of justice. A judge cannot act on motions to lift a suspension order if the records are elevated to a higher court due to a petition for mandamus.