A.M. No. RTJ-03-1750; January 14, 2005
Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation, Inc., represented by Norberto C. Maniquiz, petitioner, vs. Hon. Rogelio M. Pizarro, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 222, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation, Inc., obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage from Don C. Mejia. Upon default, the property was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold to Mejia. After the complainant failed to redeem, Mejia consolidated title and filed a petition for a writ of possession before the respondent judge’s court. The complainant opposed, citing a separate civil case it filed to annul the mortgage and sale. The respondent judge granted the writ of possession. The complainant filed various subsequent pleadings, including a notice of appeal, a petition for relief from judgment, and a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The respondent judge denied the appeal and the petition for relief, and later dismissed the appeal and ordered execution of the writ after noting the pending certiorari petition.
The complainant then filed this administrative case, alleging the respondent judge acted with bias, partiality, and grave abuse of discretion. It claimed the judge hastily issued the writ, denied its motions without legal basis, and dismissed its appeal to favor Mejia. The complainant argued these acts violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, bias, and partiality in handling the petition for a writ of possession and the subsequent pleadings filed by the complainant.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is a ministerial duty upon the filing of a proper petition and the posting of a bond, if required. The pendency of a separate action to annul the mortgage does not bar this ministerial issuance. The respondent judge’s orders were in accordance with this settled doctrine. The Court found no evidence of bias or partiality, as the judge’s actions were legally correct. Administrative liability requires more than a mere error of judgment; it requires proof of bad faith, fraud, or corruption. The complainant’s allegations were based on mere suspicion and speculation, unsupported by substantial evidence. The judge’s legal interpretations, even if eventually found erroneous, do not constitute gross ignorance absent a showing of malice or deliberate intent to violate the law.