G.R. No. RTJ-00-1560. July 5, 2000
Martin V. Brizuela vs. Judge Ruben A. Mendiola and Clerk of Court Josefina E. Costin

FACTS

Complainant Martin Brizuela and his wife were involved in litigation concerning a parcel of land mortgaged to and foreclosed by Citibank. After the foreclosure and auction sale, the buyer, Integrated Credit and Corporate Services Co. (ICCS), obtained title. The Brizuelas filed a separate action (Civil Case No. 94-1394 in RTC Branch 66, Makati) to annul the sale and title, which was dismissed; they appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 47870). To protect their interest pending that appeal, they caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the title. Concurrently, in a different proceeding for a writ of possession (LRC Case No. M-3510) filed by ICCS and raffled to RTC Branch 63 presided by respondent Judge Mendiola, the court granted the writ. ICCS later filed a motion in Branch 63 for the cancellation of the lis pendens annotation.
Separately, respondent Clerk of Court Josefina Costin issued a certification dated September 19, 1995, stating that an order dated August 29, 1995 (granting an alias writ of possession) had become final and executory as no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed. In truth, the Brizuelas had filed a notice of appeal from the earlier order granting the writ.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Ruben A. Mendiola and Clerk of Court Josefina E. Costin are administratively liable for their respective actions concerning the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens and the issuance of a certification.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. Regarding Judge Mendiola, he acted with gross ignorance of the law and undue haste in ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The notice was annotated in relation to Civil Case No. 94-1394, which was pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. The power to cancel a lis pendens is incidental to the main action; therefore, jurisdiction belonged either to the court of origin (Branch 66) or the appellate court (CA). Judge Mendiola’s Branch 63, handling only the separate writ of possession case, had no authority to cancel a notice pertaining to a different case on appeal. His order constituted improper interference. Furthermore, the motion for cancellation was set for hearing with less than the required three-day notice and was likely not served on the complainant, making it a mere scrap of paper that should have been disregarded.
Regarding Clerk of Court Costin, she is liable for negligence and lack of due care for issuing a false certification. The certification incorrectly stated that no appeal was filed from the August 29, 1995 order, when a notice of appeal had in fact been filed earlier. While the appeal was later dismissed for tardiness, it was still pending at the time of her certification. Such an inaccurate certification creates disturbance in the judicial process and undermines its integrity, warranting disciplinary action even absent proof of malice or specific damage.
The Court fined Judge Mendiola ₱5,000.00 and reprimanded Atty. Costin.