A.M. No. RTJ-02-1682; March 23, 2004
ELIZA MINA and RAMIR MINA, complainants, vs. JUDGE BENJAMIN T. VIANZON, respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, spouses Florencio and Eliza Mina, were defendants in an ejectment case decided against them by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Balanga, Bataan. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, presided by respondent Judge Benjamin T. Vianzon, affirmed the MTC decision. The losing spouses then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their appeal. The judgment became final and executory on October 16, 1999.
The prevailing plaintiffs, spouses Chico, had earlier filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal with the RTC in October 1998, which Judge Vianzon did not act upon. After the judgment became final, the plaintiffs reiterated their motion in April 2000. Instead of remanding the case to the MTC—the court of origin—for execution, Judge Vianzon granted the motion and issued the corresponding writ of execution and a subsequent writ of demolition in July 2000. The complainants’ motion to quash these writs, arguing the RTC had no authority to issue them, was merely noted by the judge, leading to the enforcement of the writs and the demolition of their house.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Benjamin T. Vianzon is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for issuing writs of execution and demolition in a final ejectment case instead of remanding it to the Municipal Trial Court.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the rules on execution are elementary and mandatory. Under Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, after a judgment has become final and executory, execution shall be applied for in the court of origin. For ejectment cases, this is explicitly the MTC that rendered the original decision. The RTC, in its appellate capacity, only has authority to order execution if it grants execution pending appeal under Rule 70. In this case, the execution was sought long after the appeal was resolved and the judgment had attained finality; thus, the authority to issue the writs rested solely with the MTC.
The Court rejected the judge’s defenses, including his claim that the complainants actively participated in the hearings without initially objecting. A judge’s duty to know and apply fundamental legal rules is non-delegable and uncompromising. His failure to follow this basic procedural command constituted gross ignorance of the law. While the offense occurred before the amendment to Rule 140 which increased penalties, the Court found the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommended fine of P2,000 insufficient given the nature of the violation. Accordingly, respondent Judge Benjamin T. Vianzon was FINED P20,000 and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.