A.M. No. RTJ-03-1759. February 27, 2003. Jimmy T. Go and Atty. Gregorio D. Cañeda Jr., complainants, vs. Judge Zeus C. Abrogar, Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 150, Makati City, respondent.
FACTS

Complainants Jimmy T. Go and his counsel, Atty. Gregorio D. Cañeda Jr., filed an administrative complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law against respondent Judge Zeus C. Abrogar. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s orders in Civil Case No. 98-791, a sum of money case where Go was held solidarily liable. Complainants challenged the judge’s order dismissing Go’s appeal as filed out of time, the issuance of a writ of execution, and the subsequent auction sale of levied shares of stock. They argued the judgment was not final and executory due to a pending petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, invoking the principle of “judicial courtesy.” They further alleged the judge incompetently relied on a sheriff’s opinion to proceed with the sale and unjustly refused to postpone it despite pending motions.
The record shows Go received the decision on October 20, 1999, and filed a motion for reconsideration on November 5, 1999. The judge denied this motion on December 17, 1999. Finding that the 15-day reglementary period to appeal had expired on November 4, 1999, a day before the motion was filed, the judge dismissed Go’s subsequent notice of appeal as tardy and issued a writ of execution. Shares of stock were levied and sold at auction on February 21, 2000. Complainants filed a motion to quash and a third-party adverse claim, but scheduled the hearing for March 3, 2000, days after the scheduled sale. They also filed a separate petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Zeus C. Abrogar is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for dismissing the appeal, issuing the writ of execution, and allowing the auction sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit. The Court found no gross ignorance of the law. The judge correctly computed the reglementary period for appeal, which expired on November 4, 1999. Since the motion for reconsideration was filed only on November 5, 1999, it did not toll the running of the appeal period. Consequently, the decision became final and executory as to Go, and the issuance of the writ of execution was proper. The principle of “judicial courtesy” does not apply as it is a discretionary rule for appellate courts, not a mandatory injunction that compels a trial court to defer execution when a judgment has become final. The judge’s actions were in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Court also noted that for gross ignorance to be administratively culpable, the erroneous order must be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. Here, the judge’s actions, including a minor clerical error in the writ, were made in good faith and based on a correct application of procedural rules. Thus, no administrative penalty is warranted.