G.R. No. 131023, 131505, and 131768. July 17, 2007.
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE FAUSTINA BORRES, ET AL., ATTY. ALBERTO A. VILLARRUZ, AND JUDGE JOSE O. ALOVERA (RET.), PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JULIUS L. ABELA, ET AL., AND VICTORIA VILLAREIZ-RADJAIE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The heirs of the Borres siblings filed a complaint for partition against their co-heir, respondent Victoria Villareiz-Radjaie, concerning a property originally adjudicated to the Borres siblings in 1929. The case was raffled to Branch 17, RTC Roxas City, presided by Judge Jose Alovera. Represented by Atty. Alberto Villarruz, the Borres heirs alleged that Radjaie’s father, Jose, fraudulently obtained sole title. Radjaie was declared in default for failure to file an answer. After ex-parte proceedings, Judge Alovera rendered a decision on January 30, 1995, in favor of the Borres heirs, ordering cancellation of Radjaie’s title and declaring the property as commonly owned. Judge Alovera retired on January 31, 1995. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued, and possession was given to the Borres heirs.
Radjaie then filed a petition for relief, asserting she was never served with summons, rendering the judgment void. She also filed a disbarment complaint against Judge Alovera. The newly appointed presiding judge, respondent Judge Julius Abela, granted the petition for relief, nullified the 1995 decision and the writ of execution, and restored possession to Radjaie. Furthermore, Judge Abela issued orders requiring Atty. Villarruz and retired Judge Alovera to explain why they should not be suspended from the practice of law for deceit and malpractice, and subsequently ordered their immediate suspension.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Abela committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) granting the petition for relief and nullifying the 1995 decision; and (2) suspending Atty. Villarruz and retired Judge Alovera from the practice of law.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. First, Judge Abela gravely abused his discretion in granting the petition for relief. A petition for relief from judgment is a remedy available only against a final and executory judgment. The 1995 decision was not final and executory as it was never entered in the book of judgments as required by the Rules of Court. Since the judgment had not attained finality, the proper remedy for Radjaie was an ordinary appeal, not a petition for relief. Judge Abela’s act of nullifying the decision via an improper remedy constituted an excess of jurisdiction.
Second, Judge Abela committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending the petitioners from the practice of law. The power to suspend or disbar attorneys is inherently vested in the Supreme Court. While lower courts may suspend an attorney for contempt or misconduct committed in facie curiae, such suspension is not immediately executory. The lower court must first transmit a full report to the Supreme Court, which will then conduct its own investigation. Judge Abela’s order of immediate suspension usurped the Supreme Court’s exclusive disciplinary authority. His actions were premised on the flawed assumption that the underlying judgment was procured through fraud, a finding the Supreme Court found unsupported. The suspension orders were therefore issued without jurisdiction and with undue haste.