G.R. No. 109645 and G.R. No. 112564 August 15, 1997
ORTIGAS & CO. LTD. PARTNERSHIP, petitioner, vs. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO and DOLORES MOLINA, respondents. (Consolidated with DOLORES V. MOLINA, petitioner, vs. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, QUEZON CITY, BR. 105; and MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.)

FACTS

This administrative matter arose from consolidated petitions where the Supreme Court annulled fraudulent land title reconstitution proceedings conducted by Judge Tirso Velasco. The Court’s prior Decision of July 25, 1994, granted Ortigas & Co. and other petitioners substantive relief by nullifying the reconstituted titles. However, it did not initially rule on Ortigas’s separate prayer for Judge Velasco’s dismissal from the judiciary. Subsequently, Ortigas and The Manila Banking Corporation filed for Judge Velasco’s removal, citing a litany of judicial errors including disregard for mandatory notice requirements, reliance on incredible evidence, bad faith in disallowing appeals, and allowing execution pending appeal, which collectively indicated gross bad faith and connivance in fraud.
Judge Velasco was required to comment. He argued the issue was moot, citing the dismissal without prejudice of a prior administrative case (A.M. No. RTJ-93-1108) and the finality of the July 25, 1994 judgment. He contended no separate administrative proceeding could proceed. The Court, however, had explicitly kept the issue of his administrative liability open through subsequent resolutions, directing that no further pleadings be filed except those pertaining directly to the motion for his dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco should be dismissed from the judiciary based on his actions in the fraudulent reconstitution proceedings.

RULING

Yes, Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco is DISMISSED from service. The Court rejected his mootness argument. The prior administrative case was dismissed without prejudice precisely to await the Court’s finding in the main cases. More critically, the Court’s resolutions, particularly that of January 23, 1995, explicitly severed the administrative inquiry from the merits of the consolidated cases, ordering proceedings to continue solely on the dismissal petition despite the finality of the judgment. Therefore, the administrative determination remained live.
On the merits, the Court found Judge Velasco’s actions constituted gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct. His handling of the reconstitution case exhibited a pattern of blatant disregard for fundamental legal procedures and the rights of opposing parties. He ignored mandatory publication and notice requirements, revived a long-dormant petition, relied on patently incredible evidence, and exhibited bias by hastily granting motions and disallowing legitimate appeals. These were not mere errors of judgment but intentional acts that facilitated a fraudulent scheme. Such conduct, which undermined public confidence in the judiciary, warranted the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government.