Cordova v. Labayen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Maribeth and Christopher Cordova, through their counsel Atty. Salvador T. Sabio, filed an administrative complaint against Judges Emma C. Labayen and Bethel Katalbas-Moscardon, Branch Clerk of Court Gia L. Arinday, Court Sheriffs Armando N. Eso and Mario P. Lamera, and Subpoena Server Edgar Depamaylo. The complaint stemmed from the alleged involvement of the respondents in Civil Case No. 7092, an ejectment case concerning a property. The administrative complaint was dismissed, but Atty. Sabio was required to explain why he should not be administratively dealt with for violating Canon I, Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Procedural History: In an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 18761), the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) rendered judgment against the predecessor-in-interest of the complainants. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this judgment. A motion for writ of execution pending appeal was granted by the RTC. A motion for reconsideration was filed, along with a supersedeas bond, but it was denied. The writ of execution was implemented, restoring possession to the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. An alias writ of execution was later issued by the RTC. The Petition: The administrative complaint filed by the complainants (heirs of Luz Cordova) revolved around the validity of the writ of execution issued by Judge Moscardon and the alias writ of execution issued by Judge Labayen. Atty. Sabio argued that the writs were issued in gross violation of the Rules of Court, with manifest partiality and grave abuse of discretion. The Court required Atty. Sabio to explain why he should not be administratively sanctioned.
Issue(s)
Whether the writ of execution issued by Judge Moscardon was valid despite the filing of a supersedeas bond and payment of advance rentals. Whether the alias writ of execution issued by Judge Labayen was void due to lack of notice to counsel and pendency of review before the Supreme Court. Whether Atty. Sabio violated Canon I, Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Salvador T. Sabio guilty of violating Canon I, Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months. The Court held that the issuance of the writs of execution was valid and done in the judicious exercise of the respondents' functions. The administrative complaint was deemed baseless and malicious, filed to frustrate the enforcement of lawful court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the writ of execution issued by Judge Moscardon: The Court reiterated that to stay execution pending appeal in ejectment cases, the defendant-appellant must perfect the appeal, file a sufficient supersedeas bond approved by the court, and deposit the rentals falling due during the appeal. The records showed that the purported supersedeas bond was belatedly filed more than five months after the MTC judgment and only after the RTC had already granted the motion for execution pending appeal. The Court found this filing to be a dilatory afterthought. Furthermore, no supersedeas bond was filed after the rendition of the decision either in the court of origin or in the appellate court, which is a mandatory requirement. The amount deposited, P18,000.00, was found to represent rental payments for a specific period and could not subserve the purpose of a supersedeas bond. Therefore, Judge Moscardon was justified in issuing the writ of execution. On the legality of the alias writ of execution issued by Judge Labayen: The Court noted that under Section 10 of Rule 70, an appeal to the CA or Supreme Court shall not be stayed unless the appellants deposit the amount of rent due from time to time. The records did not show proof of subsequent rental payments after the CA decision. Even assuming the P12,000.00 deposited was for rentals, it was insufficient for the entire pendency of the appeal before the CA and Supreme Court. The complainants re-entered and remained in possession of the premises, and their failure to make periodic deposits during the pendency of the appeal, coupled with their continued occupancy, made the issuance of the alias writ of execution a ministerial and mandatory duty of the respondent judges. The claim that execution could not issue because counsel was not furnished a copy of the order granting the alias writ was dismissed as Atty. Sabio failed to invoke any legal authority for such a theory, and the filing of the complaint was deemed ill-conceived and malicious. On Atty. Sabio's violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found that Atty. Sabio's contentions were premised on a misinterpretation of the Rules of Court regarding the stay of execution. His insistence on the invalidity of the writs, despite clear provisions of law and the factual circumstances, demonstrated a failure to uphold the integrity of the courts and an attempt to frustrate the enforcement of lawful court orders. The Court concluded that Atty. Sabio instigated the filing of a baseless administrative complaint, thereby abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law and encouraging suits for improper motives, constituting violations of Rules 1.02 and 1.03 of Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a supersedeas bond and periodic rental payments are mandatory requirements to stay execution pending appeal in ejectment cases. Failure to comply with these requirements renders the issuance of a writ of execution a ministerial duty of the court.