G.R. No. 118691 . April 17, 1997
ALEJANDRO BAYOG and JORGE PESAYCO, JR., petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO M. NATINO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique and ALBERTO MAGDATO, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from an ejectment complaint filed by Alejandro Bayog against Alberto Magdato before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). Magdato, in his belatedly filed Answer, asserted the MCTC lacked jurisdiction because an agrarian tenancy relationship existed, evidenced by an Agricultural Leasehold Contract and a Certificate issued by then President Marcos. The MCTC, presided by Judge Deogracias K. Del Rosario, refused to take cognizance of the Answer, applying the old Rule on Summary Procedure instead of the Revised Rule effective since November 1991. The court proceeded to render a judgment against Magdato.
In its September 20, 1993 Order, the MCTC directed Magdato to remove his house “before judgment becomes final and executory” and authorized the sheriff to demolish it should Magdato fail to do so. This order was reiterated in a December 16, 1993 Order of Execution. Consequently, on January 24, 1994, the sheriff, with police escort, immediately ejected Magdato and demolished his house on the very day the writ was served.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Deogracias K. Del Rosario committed gross ignorance of law and procedure warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Del Rosario administratively liable. The legal logic is clear and multi-faceted. First, the judge failed to keep abreast of basic procedural updates by applying an obsolete rule. Second, and more critically, he erred in refusing to consider Magdato’s Answer. While filed late, the Answer raised the pivotal defense of lack of jurisdiction due to agrarian tenancy. Under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is a permitted pleading. The MCTC had a duty to hear evidence on this jurisdictional issue, as a finding of tenancy would divest it of authority over the ejectment case. Ignoring this defense was a fundamental error.
Third, the judge’s orders for removal and demolition “before judgment becomes final and executory” were a blatant violation of Section 8, Rule 70 and Section 21 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which prohibit execution before finality. These orders, executed with immediate demolition, were oppressive, capricious, and an abuse of authority, designed to render any appeal futile. A defendant must be afforded a reasonable period to comply after finality of judgment. The Court emphasized that judges must exhibit more than a cursory knowledge of law and procedure; they are not depositories of arbitrary power but judges under the sanction of law. For these acts of ignorance resulting in oppression, Judge Del Rosario was fined P5,000.00 and sternly warned.