G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-01-1620. March 18, 2002.
SPOUSES ADRIANO and HILDA MONTEROLA, complainants, vs. JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR., respondent.

FACTS

On March 15, 1999, the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 253, presided by respondent Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., rendered a decision in favor of complainants Spouses Adriano and Hilda Monterola in Civil Case No. LP-98-0141. The decision ordered the defendants to pay the complainants P207,708.00, less capital gains and documentary taxes, with interest, and enjoined further construction on the subject property until full payment. The decision became final and executory as the defendants did not appeal. The complainants filed a Motion for Execution on April 28, 1999, but respondent Judge refused to grant it. Subsequently, the defendants filed a Motion to Accept Deposit of a check for P81,000. The complainants opposed this motion and reiterated their request for a writ of execution. Despite the defendants’ non-appearance at a hearing and the complainants’ Ex-Parte Motion for Execution citing urgent need for funds for medical reasons, respondent Judge still refused to issue the writ. Instead, he ordered the parties to meet with the Clerk of Court to discuss the computation of the amount due. The complainants filed an administrative complaint for unreasonable refusal to grant execution and dereliction of duty. Respondent Judge defended his actions by claiming the motion for execution was pro forma for lack of proper notice, that the exact amount due needed determination, and that court operations were disrupted by staff resignations.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. is administratively liable for gross ignorance of procedural law and unreasonable delay in issuing a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court held that execution of a final and executory judgment issues as a matter of right under Section 1, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, making it a ministerial duty for the court to order execution. Respondent Judge’s justifications for the delay were flimsy. First, the alleged pro forma nature of the motion did not excuse the delay, as the judgment was already final. Second, the exact amount due was clearly stated in the dispositive portion and was capable of exact determination without complex computation; there was no need for meetings or clarifications. Third, confusion due to staff resignations was trivial, as judges are responsible for managing their dockets and cannot hide behind staff inefficiency. By failing to issue the writ promptly, respondent Judge either deliberately disregarded the rule or demonstrated gross ignorance of the law. The Court emphasized that judges must be conversant with fundamental legal principles, and ignorance of basic procedural rules undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Although respondent eventually issued the execution order on August 14, 2001, this did not absolve him from liability for the prior delay. Accordingly, respondent Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. was found guilty of gross ignorance of procedural law and undue delay, and fined P30,000, with a stern warning against repetition.