G.R. No. RTJ-07-2054; August 23, 2007
ATTY. ODEL S. JANDA and ATTY. JERRY O. REMONTE, Complainants, vs. JUDGE EDDIE R. ROJAS, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from Judge Eddie R. Rojas’s handling of Civil Case No. 6474. On June 15, 2006, he rendered a decision against defendants, including Planters Development Bank. The defendants filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and New Trial. The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. In an Order dated August 30, 2006, Judge Rojas denied the Omnibus Motion, declaring it technically infirm for violating Rule 15, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding notice of hearing. Consequently, he ruled the June 15 Decision final and executory, granted the treated motion for execution, and directed issuance of a writ.
On August 31, 2006, Clerk of Court Atty. Queenie Marie L. Fulgar issued the Writ of Execution. Sheriffs Marilyn P. Alano and Ramon A. Castillo enforced it against Planters Bank on September 1, 2006. Complainants, bank representatives, charged Judge Rojas with gross ignorance of the law for declaring the decision final, contravening the Neypes doctrine which allows a fresh 15-day appeal period after denial of a motion for reconsideration. They also alleged manifest bias, noting excessive damages awarded. Atty. Fulgar was charged for hastily issuing the writ despite knowing the order was unserved and the judgment non-final. The sheriffs were accused of oppressive enforcement, causing a bank run.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for their actions related to the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 6474.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Rojas administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law but dismissed the charges against the other respondents. The Court held that Judge Rojas committed a gross misapplication of basic rules. His declaration of finality was based solely on a procedural defect in the Omnibus Motion (improper notice of hearing). However, a motion for reconsideration, even if technically infirm, still suspends the running of the period to appeal until it is resolved. By treating the infirm motion as a mere scrap of paper and immediately declaring finality, Judge Rojas disregarded this settled rule and the Neypes doctrine. His actions constituted gross ignorance, defined as a conscious disregard of elementary and settled legal principles. The penalty of one-year suspension without pay was imposed.
Regarding Atty. Fulgar and the sheriffs, the Court found no liability. The Clerk of Court and the sheriffs performed ministerial duties. Atty. Fulgar issued the writ pursuant to a court order she was bound to obey, absent a clear showing it was patently void. The sheriffs enforced a regular writ on its face. Their actions, though swift, were in compliance with their ministerial functions. The charges against them were dismissed for lack of merit.