Barbarona v. Canda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Regino and Conceso Barbarona filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Alejandro T. Canda for allegedly rendering an unjust judgment, ignorance of the law, incompetence, grave abuse of discretion, and grave misconduct. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 356, a case for quieting of title and damages filed by Gerardo Magallanes against Conceso Barbarona and Hermogenes Barbarona (complainants' father). Magallanes claimed ownership of two parcels of land, alleging he purchased them from Felipa R. Goria and that the tenants had executed affidavits of voluntary surrender. However, the Barbaronas allegedly prevented Magallanes from cutting bamboo thickets, claiming ownership. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer had previously set a pre-litigation conference between the parties. Procedural History: The Barbaronas moved for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 356, asserting lack of jurisdiction due to a landlord-tenant relationship and arguing the case involved a cause of action incapable of pecuniary estimation. Respondent judge denied the motion on May 16, 1995, deeming it a mere scrap of paper for lacking proof of service, and declared the Barbaronas in default. Magallanes presented evidence ex parte, and on June 13, 1995, the respondent judge rendered judgment in favor of Magallanes, declaring his titles clear and the Barbaronas' claim unfounded. The Regional Trial Court affirmed this decision. Subsequently, respondent judge issued a writ of execution, leading to the levy and auction sale of Hermogenes Barbarona's land, which was purchased by Magallanes. The Petition: Complainants alleged that respondent judge failed to determine the existence of a tenancy relationship, failed to refer the case to the DAR, connived with the plaintiff to eject them, was incompetent and inefficient, engaged in business, and acted improperly as a notary public ex officio by notarizing private documents and charging fees. Respondent judge denied the charges, asserting the motion to dismiss was defective, there was no basis to refer to DAR due to lack of responsive pleading, he was not engaged in business, and his notarization was justified by the lack of other notaries and Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge erred in failing to refer Civil Case No. 356 to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for preliminary determination of a tenancy relationship. Whether respondent judge was guilty of connivance with the plaintiff to eject the complainants. Whether respondent judge was incompetent and inefficient. Whether respondent judge was guilty of grave misconduct by engaging in business. Whether respondent judge acted improperly as a notary public ex officio by notarizing a private document and charging fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the charges of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, ignorance of the law, incompetence, grave abuse of discretion, and grave misconduct, except for the violation of Circular No. 1-90. Respondent Judge Alejandro T. Canda was found guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90 and ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00, with a warning against repetition of similar acts. The administrative complaint was dismissed for lack of merit regarding the other charges.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to refer to DAR: The Court held that the failure of respondent judge to refer Civil Case No. 356 to the DAR for preliminary consideration could not be taken against him. This was because, at the time the complaint was filed, Presidential Decree Nos. 316 and 1038, which required such preliminary determination, had already been expressly repealed by Republic Act No. 6657. Therefore, it was unnecessary to refer the case to the DAR, and the respondent judge correctly proceeded to hear the case. The Court cited Caraan v. Court of Appeals in support of the repeal of these decrees. On the alleged connivance and unjust judgment: The Court found no evidence of connivance between the respondent judge and the plaintiff. The declaration of default and subsequent ex parte judgment were a direct consequence of the Barbaronas' failure to file a responsive pleading after their motion to dismiss was denied for lack of proof of service. Complainant Regino Barbarona himself admitted during the hearing that they had no evidence to prove conspiracy. Thus, the judgment rendered was not necessarily unjust but a result of procedural lapses by the defendants. On alleged incompetence and inefficiency: The Court found no evidence to support the allegations of incompetence and inefficiency. The monthly accomplishment reports of the respondent judge for 1998 showed that, with the exception of one criminal case in September, he had no cases submitted for decision but not yet decided at the end of the month. This indicated a generally efficient disposition of his caseload. On alleged engagement in business: The charge that respondent judge was preoccupied with a trucking and copra buying and selling business, leading to neglect of judicial duties, was also found to be without basis. Complainants admitted they had no evidence of the judge engaging in business, only hearsay that he "had a truck and [that] he was buying copra." The burden of proof rested on the complainants, and they failed to discharge it, as stated in Saylo v. Rojo. On improper notarization: The Court found that respondent judge failed to comply with the requisites under Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90. While he claimed there was no available notary public at the time, he failed to certify this fact in the document itself. Furthermore, he failed to remit the notarial fees received (P18.50) to the municipal treasurer as required, instead remitting it to the Judiciary Development Fund. For this violation, a fine of P1,000.00 was deemed appropriate.
Main Doctrine
A judge's failure to refer a case to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for preliminary determination of a tenancy relationship is not a ground for administrative liability if the relevant decrees requiring such referral have been repealed. Furthermore, a motion to dismiss lacking proof of service is considered a mere scrap of paper, and failure to file a responsive pleading after its denial can validly lead to a declaration of default.