AM MTJ 00 1314; (September, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1314. September 7, 2000. ATTY. CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS, complainant, vs. JUDGE RODOLFO D. OBNAMIA, JR., respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Clodualdo C. De Jesus, counsel for defendants in an ejectment case, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Rodolfo D. Obnamia, Jr. for gross ignorance of the law, partiality, incompetence, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. The ejectment case, originally decided by Judge Domingo Nantes, ordered defendants to vacate 246 square meters of land. The Court of Appeals later modified this decision, limiting the area for vacation to 220 square meters. Upon Judge Nantes’ retirement, respondent judge assumed the case.
On August 6, 1997, respondent judge heard the plaintiffs’ motion for an alias writ of execution. Complainant, representing the defendants, received the motion only on that same date, leaving the defendants unrepresented. The following day, respondent judge deemed the motion submitted for resolution. On August 14, 1997, he granted the motion and issued an alias writ of execution ordering the defendants’ ejectment from the original 246 square meters, disregarding the Court of Appeals’ modification. The defendants moved for reconsideration, but respondent judge denied it in an order dated October 23, 1997, which he later refused to allow the defendants to appeal.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Rodolfo D. Obnamia, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions in handling the motion for alias writ of execution and the subsequent orders.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court found that respondent judge committed a serious error by ordering execution based on the original MCTC decision for 246 square meters, despite the Court of Appeals’ final and executory decision modifying the area to 220 square meters. He claimed the appellate court’s decision was not in the records, but it had been brought to his attention through a supplemental opposition filed by the complainant. His failure to verify and apply the correct, modified judgment constitutes gross ignorance of basic legal procedures.
Furthermore, respondent judge violated the three-day notice rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court by hearing the motion for execution on the same day the complainant received it, depriving the defendants of their right to be heard on a contentious matter. While a hearing is not always required for execution of a final judgment, the circumstances here—involving a modified judgment and a disputed execution—made notice and hearing imperative. His failure to ensure procedural due process is censurable conduct. The Court imposed a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) with a warning. The aspect concerning the denial of the notice of appeal was not ruled upon as it was pending before the Regional Trial Court.