AM RTJ 02 1705; (May, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1705. May 5, 2003.
John Siy Lim, complainant, vs. Judge Antonio J. Fineza, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant John Siy Lim, the prevailing defendant in Civil Case No. 14542, charged respondent Judge Antonio J. Fineza with gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct. The Supreme Court had rendered a final and executory Decision on October 3, 2000, affirming a Court of Appeals judgment in Lim’s favor. An Entry of Judgment was issued on March 16, 2001. Consequently, Lim filed a motion for execution in the respondent judge’s court on June 14, 2001.
The losing plaintiff, Tomas See Tuazon, filed an opposition, falsely claiming a pending “Motion to Recall” the Supreme Court’s resolution was still unresolved. Despite the Supreme Court having already expunged that very motion from its records on August 13, 2001, respondent judge denied Lim’s motion for execution on September 10, 2001, deeming it “premature.” Respondent justified his denial by citing Tuazon’s pending motion and later criticized Lim for filing a “wrong pleading” instead of a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Fineza is administratively liable for his refusal to issue a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that execution of a final and executory judgment is a ministerial duty under Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled to execution as a matter of right, and the trial court has no discretion to deny it. Respondent’s justification—that a frivolous motion to recall was pending—demonstrated a fundamental disregard for this basic legal principle. A judge cannot amend or refuse to execute a final judgment from a superior court.
The Court found that respondent’s actions constituted gross misconduct, not mere ignorance. His denial of the motion, based on a patently invalid ground already dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the resulting 88-day delay, were indicative of bad faith and a deliberate delay of justice. This conduct eroded public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) with a stern warning against repetition.