G.R. No. RTJ-09-2189; January 18, 2011
Victoriano Sy, Complainant, vs. Judge Oscar E. Dinopol, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Koronadal City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Victoriano Sy filed an administrative complaint against Judge Oscar E. Dinopol for Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Judiciary and Gross Ignorance of the Law. The complaint arose from two related cases: Civil Case No. 1403-24 (for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage filed by Sps. Sy against Metrobank) and Misc. Case No. 1440-24 (for Issuance of a Writ of Possession filed by Metrobank against Sps. Sy et al.). Metrobank had foreclosed on 23 parcels of land mortgaged by the Sps. Sy and others. Judge Dinopol inhibited himself from Civil Case No. 1403-24 on April 16, 2004, citing calls from judicial officials interceding for both parties. However, he later presided over Misc. Case No. 1440-24, filed on September 15, 2005, granting Metrobank’s petition for a writ of possession on July 13, 2006, and ordering its re-implementation on February 11, 2008, despite a stay order issued by the RTC of Marawi City on June 26, 2006, in a corporate rehabilitation case (Corp. Case No. 1585-06) involving one of the debtors. For the charge of Conduct Unbecoming, Sy alleged that Judge Dinopol solicited and received commodity loans (construction materials) from him in March 2005, evidenced by delivery receipts and invoices, and obtained cash loans totaling ₱121,000.00 between December 2005 and July 2006, while cases involving Sy were pending. Judge Dinopol denied the cash loans and borrowing of a vehicle, and claimed the commodity loans were obtained after he had already inhibited from Civil Case No. 1403-24 and before Misc. Case No. 1440-24 was filed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Judge Dinopol is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law in handling the related cases and issuing the writ of possession despite a stay order from a rehabilitation court.
2. Whether Judge Dinopol is administratively liable for Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Judiciary for soliciting and receiving loans from a litigant with pending cases before his court.

RULING

1. On the charge of Gross Ignorance of the Law: The Court found NO liability. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluation, which the Court affirmed, found no basis for this charge. Judge Dinopol had inhibited himself from Civil Case No. 1403-24 and therefore could not be faulted for its handling. Regarding Misc. Case No. 1440-24, the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the mortgagee-purchaser (Metrobank) after the redemption period is a ministerial duty. The pendency of a separate action for annulment of mortgage or foreclosure does not bar its issuance. Furthermore, the stay order issued by the Marawi City RTC in the corporate rehabilitation case did not automatically divest Judge Dinopol of jurisdiction or make his order for re-implementation a grossly ignorant act, as the matter involved the exercise of judicial discretion.
2. On the charge of Conduct Unbecoming: The Court found Judge Dinopol GUILTY. The Court agreed with the OCA’s finding. Judge Dinopol admitted to obtaining commodity loans (construction materials) from complainant Sy in March 2005. At that time, while he had inhibited from Civil Case No. 1403-24, the adversarial relationship between Sy and Metrobank persisted, and the related petition for a writ of possession (Misc. Case No. 1440-24) would later be filed in and assigned to his sala in September 2005. A judge must avoid not just impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. By borrowing from a party who had previously and would again have a case in his court, Judge Dinopol violated the rule that a judge’s personal behavior must be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. His actions eroded public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Considering his previous administrative sanctions, the Court imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.