Go v. Abrogar
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This administrative case arose from an order by respondent Judge Zeus C. Abrogar, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 150, Makati City, concerning the execution of a decision in Civil Case No. 98-791. In that underlying civil case, a judgment was rendered against Alberto T. Looyuko and complainant Jimmy T. Go, holding them solidarily liable to pay International Exchange Bank the sum of P96,000,000.00, plus interest and costs. 2. Procedural History: Complainant Jimmy T. Go received the decision on October 20, 1999, and moved for reconsideration or a new trial, which was denied on December 17, 1999. On January 3, 2000, the plaintiff bank moved for execution, asserting the appeal period had expired. Go filed his notice of appeal on January 5, 2000, opposing the execution. Meanwhile, co-defendant Alberto T. Looyuko withdrew his appeal. On February 8, 2000, respondent Judge dismissed Go's appeal as untimely. Subsequently, on February 14, 2000, the judge ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. This led to the levy and auction sale of 81,566 shares of stock registered in Looyuko's name. Go then filed a motion to quash the writ and a third-party adverse claim, followed by a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which was denied on May 15, 2000. 3. The Petition: Complainants Jimmy T. Go and Atty. Gregorio D. Cañeda Jr. filed this administrative complaint alleging gross ignorance of the law against respondent Judge. They contend that the judge improperly dismissed Go's appeal, ruled the judgment ripe for execution prematurely, and wrongly allowed the execution sale of shares purportedly co-owned by Go. They argue that the judgment was not yet final due to the pending petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, invoking the principle of judicial courtesy. Furthermore, they claim the judge was incompetent, relying on a deputy sheriff's opinion for the auction sale, and erred by not postponing the sale despite pending motions and an adverse claim.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law in dismissing the appeal and ordering the execution of the judgment. Whether the principle of judicial courtesy applies to prevent the execution of the judgment. Whether the filing of a third-party adverse claim and a motion to quash the writ of execution automatically stay the execution sale, and whether complainants, being parties to the case, could avail themselves of remedies intended for third parties. Whether the respondent Judge was incompetent for allegedly relying on the sheriff's opinion, and whether the complainants engaged in forum shopping and misapplication of remedies.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Judge Zeus C. Abrogar for lack of merit. The Court found that the respondent judge acted within his authority in dismissing the appeal for being filed out of time and in ordering the execution of the judgment. The Court also held that the principle of judicial courtesy was not violated, as no petition was pending before the appellate court at the time the execution processes were initiated. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the filing of a third-party claim or a motion to quash does not stay an execution sale, especially when the claimant is not a stranger to the case. The allegation of incompetence was also found to be unsubstantiated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal and issuance of the writ of execution: The Court affirmed that respondent Judge possessed the authority under Section 13, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an appeal for having been taken out of time. The dismissal of Go's appeal on February 8, 2000, preceded the issuance of the order and writ of execution on February 14, 2000, and the execution sale on February 21, 2000. Therefore, as far as Judge Abrogar was concerned, the decision was already final and executory. This was further bolstered by the Court of Appeals' affirmation in CA-G.R. SP No. 57572, which declared the judgment final and executory and the respondent judge's orders valid. On the principle of judicial courtesy: The Court clarified that the principle of judicial courtesy could not have prevented the respondent judge from authorizing the execution of the judgment and issuing the writ of execution because, at the time these processes were made available, no petition was pending in the Court of Appeals. The petition in the appellate court was filed only on March 4, 2000. The Court emphasized that judicial courtesy should not be applied indiscriminately, especially when the petition does not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction has been issued. The circumstances did not present a situation where the appellate court's proceedings would be rendered moot and moribund by the lower court's actions. On the effect of a third-party claim and motion to quash: The Court held that the mere filing of a "terceria" or an affidavit of title under Section 16, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or a motion to quash the writ of execution, does not stay the auction sale scheduled by the sheriff. The Court pointed out that complainants were not "strangers" or "third persons" to Civil Case No. 98-791, as Go was a party to the original action. Therefore, they lacked the standing to file a "terceria." The grounds for quashing the writ, such as the alleged lack of finality of the decision and the absence of a hearing, were matters already resolved and found to be unmeritorious, with Go having been given several opportunities to contest the motion for execution. The Court also reiterated that complainants, being parties to the case, could not avail themselves of the remedies under Section 16, Rule 39, which are intended for "strangers" or "third persons." On the alleged incompetence of the judge: The Court found no substantial evidence to prove that respondent Judge was incompetent. The transcripts of stenographic notes did not show that he relied solely on the opinion of Deputy Sheriff Renato Flora. The Court stated that discussions between a judge and his staff regarding execution sales are expected and do not indicate incompetence. The effort of a judge to seek advice from staff on non-confidential matters is not a badge of judicial incompetence, as the final decision remains the judge's prerogative. The Court noted that the complainants appeared to have violated the rule of judicial courtesy and engaged in forum shopping. They filed a separate action for annulment of the auction sale, a third-party adverse claim, a motion to quash the writ, and a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, all seeking substantially the same relief.
Main Doctrine
A judge is not guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing a writ of execution when the appeal period has expired and the appeal has been dismissed, even if there are subsequent petitions filed, as long as these petitions do not interrupt the proceedings. The filing of a third-party claim or a motion to quash does not automatically stay an execution sale, especially when the claimant is not a stranger to the case.