G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-92-655. March 8, 1993.
LICERIO P. NIQUE, complainant, vs. JUDGE FELIPE G. ZAPATOS, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Licerio P. Nique was the plaintiff in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 300) for Forcible Entry with Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction concerning a fishpond, filed in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Tangub City. Initially, the MTCC (Judge Ricardo L. Salvanera) issued a restraining order directing defendants to vacate the fishpond and restore possession to Nique. Later, Judge Salvanera lifted the restraining order and delivered possession to the defendants. Nique filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which referred the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XIV, Tangub City. On May 19, 1989, the RTC set aside Judge Salvanera’s orders and directed the reinstatement of the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and the restoration of Nique’s possession. After this RTC decision became final and executory, Nique filed a motion for execution in the MTCC, now presided by respondent Judge Felipe G. Zapatos. The defendants filed a motion to lift the injunction. In an order dated December 27, 1990, Judge Zapatos denied Nique’s motion for execution and dissolved the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction that the RTC had ordered reinstated. Nique filed an administrative complaint against Judge Zapatos for gross ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust order, causing unnecessary delay, and giving undue advantage to the defendants.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Felipe G. Zapatos is administratively liable for disobeying the final and executory judgment of the Regional Trial Court, a superior court, by denying the motion for execution and dissolving the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction that the RTC had ordered reinstated.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Judge Felipe G. Zapatos GUILTY of disobedience of a final judgment of a superior court and of obstructing the administration of justice. The Court ruled that a municipal trial judge, being lower in rank than the RTC, owes respect and is bound by the decisions of the appellate court. The execution of a final judgment is a ministerial duty of the trial court. Judge Zapatos’ act of “reversing” the final RTC judgment, instead of complying with it, constituted audacity, arrogance, and presumption. His justifications—such as an alleged change in the situation of the parties (defendants’ P2 million investment and filing of a P60,000 counterbond) and the issuance of free patent titles to the defendants—were unavailing. The Court emphasized that the appellate jurisdiction of a higher court would be meaningless if a lower court could disregard its final orders. Judge Zapatos was ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and was warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.