Gomez v. Belan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In an ejectment case, Atty. Arlindo S. Angeles, counsel for the plaintiffs (Arandia Spouses), filed a "Motion to Enter Premises and Render Judgment" alleging that the defendants (Gomez Spouses) had abandoned the litigated premises and refused to surrender the keys. He prayed for permission to enter the premises with the assistance of officers and to break open any necessary locks. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Estanislao S. Belan issued an Order ex parte granting the plaintiffs permission to break the padlock at the gate and declared the case submitted for decision. Pursuant to this order, the sheriff, accompanied by a police officer, Mrs. Erlinda Arandia, and Atty. Angeles, entered the premises, confirmed the abandonment, and found only a few personal belongings. The house was then secured. The Petition: The Gomez Spouses filed administrative proceedings against Judge Belan for "gross ignorance of the law" and against Atty. Angeles for "deliberately misleading the Court." They alleged that Judge Belan acted without giving them a hearing and virtually directed execution while the case was pending decision. They also claimed Atty. Angeles did not notify them of his motion and provided false information to the judge.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Belan committed gross ignorance of the law in issuing the Order ex parte and whether the Gomez Spouses had abandoned the leased premises. Whether respondent Atty. Angeles deliberately misled the Court.
Ruling
The Court resolved to DISMISS the complaint against respondent Judge Estanislao S. Belan and respondent Atty. Arlindo S. Angeles for lack of merit, with the admonition that in the future they be more observant of due process in court proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Judge Belan's Order ex parte and due process, and the issue of abandonment: The Court agrees with the Investigating Judge that the evidence indubitably establishes that the Gomez Spouses had abandoned the premises subject of the ejectment action. The act of padlocking the gate and back door after entry was a valid act of ownership to protect the premises from intrusion by others. The finding of abandonment rendered moot and academic the issue of possession in the ejectment case. While it may be true that the Order was issued without giving the complainants a chance to be heard, the argument is hypocritical as giving them a chance to air their side could not have disproved the allegations of abandonment. However, the Court acknowledges that the Order might have been infirm due to the failure to observe procedural due process. The new address of the complainants was known to respondent Angeles and made known to respondent Judge in the Motion itself. It devolved upon respondent Judge to set the Motion for hearing and ensure the complainants' side was heard. Nevertheless, the complainants bear blame for the failure to notify them, as they had no address on record and failed to inform the Court of their move. Their new address, though stated by respondent Angeles, was unverified. The obligation to inform the Court of their new address devolved upon the complainants themselves, not respondent Angeles. Thus, the complainants came to court with unclean hands. On the issue of Atty. Angeles misleading the Court: The Court found no deliberate misleading. The allegations in the motion regarding abandonment were substantiated by the subsequent findings. While the procedure for obtaining the order could have been more rigorous in terms of due process, the core assertion of abandonment was supported by evidence. The complainants' failure to provide a verified address and their own lack of diligence in informing the court of their new residence contributed to the procedural lapse, diminishing their claim of being deliberately misled.
Main Doctrine
While a judge may err in issuing an order ex parte without a hearing, the parties seeking such order, if they have knowledge of the other party's new address and fail to disclose it, may be deemed to have unclean hands, mitigating the judge's procedural lapse.