A.M. No. 749-CFI September 5, 1975
JUANA SAN PEDRO AND FRANCISCO SAN PEDRO, complainants, vs. HON. JUDGE SERAFIN SALVADOR AND ATTY. JOSE S. CATBAGAN, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a dispute over a 29-hectare fishpond in Malabon, Rizal, donated in 1902 for the maintenance of San Antonio Church. The donors’ descendants, the Salaos and Gozons, became embroiled in litigation (Civil Case No. C-1302) over the property’s administration, prompting the church’s caretakers, the San Pedros, to intervene. The Court of Appeals, in CA- G.R. No. 46874 -R, directed respondent Judge Serafin Salvador to appoint a receiver to manage the fishpond, ensure payment of the caretakers’ salaries from its fruits, and expedite the trial. The complainants charged Judge Salvador with failure to comply with this appellate decision, inaction on the main case, and falsification of time records. They also charged Atty. Jose Catbagan, the subsequently appointed receiver and Branch Clerk of Court, with inefficiency in his duties and falsification of a pleading.
Judge Salvador defended his initial delay in appointing a receiver by citing a pending motion for reconsideration and a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court by a party, arguing the appellate decision might be altered. He also stated he exercised discretion in selecting a qualified receiver, deeming complainant Francisco San Pedro unsuitable due to his interest. He eventually appointed Atty. Catbagan. The judge attributed further delays in implementing the salary payments and accounting to Catbagan’s initial reluctance to assume the receivership role due to his clerical duties, a challenge to his appointment, and concerns over the receiver’s bond.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Serafin Salvador and Atty. Jose S. Catbagan are administratively liable for the charges against them.

RULING

The Supreme Court exonerated Atty. Jose S. Catbagan and admonished Judge Serafin Salvador. Regarding Judge Salvador, the Court found his explanations for the delays insufficient to constitute a valid defense. A judge must obey and implement orders from a superior court promptly and without delay. The filing of a motion for reconsideration or an appeal does not justify withholding compliance with a final and executory order from the Court of Appeals. Judicial discretion must be exercised within the bounds of and in obedience to such directives. His failure to act with dispatch in appointing a receiver and ensuring the caretakers were paid from the fishpond’s fruits, as unequivocally ordered, constituted a lack of diligence. However, in light of his eventual compliance and the investigated circumstances, the penalty was moderated to an admonition with a warning.
For Atty. Catbagan, the Court found the charges of inefficiency and falsification unsubstantiated. His initial hesitancy to assume the receivership, while causing delay, was based on practical concerns about his existing duties and the bond requirement, and he ultimately fulfilled his obligations. The charge of falsification in a pleading failed because the complainants did not present the alleged report necessary to prove the statement was untrue. Consequently, he was exonerated of all charges.