JAIME ROBLES' VAIN ATTEMPT TO PERFECT HIS RECORD ON APPEAL TERMINATED AND DECLARED REMOVED FROM THE ROSTER OF PENDING CA CASES, THE COURT OF APPEALS ADMITTING THEY HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE RTC CASE

      I recently scanned the website of the Court of Appeals and lo and behold! I got hold of a new Resolution, which has already become final and executory.  Mr. Henry Rodriguez was never given a copy of such petition for appeal, which was obviously a continuation of Jaime Robles' vain attempt to perfect his appeal by filing a Record on Appeal which had been denied since way back November 22, 1999 by the RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City after the RTC Amended Decision of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 was issued on August 13, 1999.  This new petition for appeal of Jaime Robles was DENIED by the Court of Appeals when the Honorable Appellate Court declared that they (the Court of Appeals) HAD NOT ATTAINED JURISDICTION OVER THE RTC CASE.

      The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.100650 Resolution dated July 19, 2013 declared:

     "The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, and should be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. The statutory nature of the right to appeal requires the one who avails himself of it to strictly comply with the statutes or rules that are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. In the absence of highly exceptional circumstances warranting their relaxation, like when the loftier demands of substantial justice and equity require the relaxation, or when there are other special and meritorious circumstances and issues, such statutes or rules should remain inviolable.

      In like manner, the perfection of an appeal within the period laid down by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, because the failure to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court causes the judgment or final order to become final as to preclude the appellate court from acquiring the jurisdiction to review the judgment or final order. The failure of the movant-appellant and his counsel to file their record on appeal on time rendered the orders of the RTC final and unappealable. Thereby, this Court has lost the jurisdiction to review the challenged orders, and movant-appellant is precluded from assailing the orders.

      

      WHEREFORE, considering that this Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the instant Appeal, this case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.

      Let the records of CA-G.R. CV No. 100650 be dropped from the list of pending cases before this Court.

      SO ORDERED."

    

    

      The dispositive portion of the above Court of Appeals Resolution dated July 19, 2013, declaring that the Honorable Appellate Court had NO JURISDICTION over the Record of Appeal of movant-appellant Jaime Robles was clearly in consonance with the Supreme Court Decision dated June 22, 2011 in G.R. No. 182645- "In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al. - Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles," the portion which discussed the rule of immutability of finality of judgments, and categorized the RTC Amended Decision dated August 13, 1999 as immutable and was unlike the previous Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.No.SP57417 dated April 16, 2002 of the same titled case filed by the same movant-appellant Jaime Robles, the previous CA ruling categorized as a VOID JUDGMENT by the Supreme Court since the appellate LACKED OR HAD NO JURISDICTION over the Amended Decision of the RTC instant case.

      With the Court of Appeals admitting that they had no jurisdiction over the above captioned case, and the Supreme Court describing the RTC Amended Decision having lapsed into finality and was categorized as immutable judgment, the present Presiding Judge of RTC Iriga City CANNOT USE ANYMORE the February 21, 2007 Order which previously implemented the April 16, 2002 void CA Decision, both having been declared nullified by the Supreme Court December 4, 2009 Decision.  The RTC judge's role in the above mentioned RTC case is now clearly MINISTERIAL in the implementation and execution of the aforesaid RTC AMENDED DECISION.

AUTHORITY TO CONVEY AND TRANSFER ESTATE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS VESTED BY THE INTESTATE COURT TO THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR ALONE

      The intestate estate proceedings of the brothers the late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez y Reyes, Don Antonio Rodriguez y Reyes, et al in Special Proceedings No. IR-1110: For Heirship, Administratorship and Settlement of the Estates of the said decedents which was filed by Mr. Henry F. Rodriguez and his co-heirs with the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Camarines Sur, Branch 34, was issued AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999, and was issued a Certificate of Finality dated January 17, 2000 by the same RTC Branch 34.

      The said intestate Court vested the authority to sign, convey and transfer the estate properties, SOLELY with the Judicial Administrator HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, and this was clearly pronounced in the Court Order dated September 8, 2000 of the said Court.  It clearly vests, cites and declares in the Order that:

      "Premises considered, and in the interest of justice and equity, the motion of counsel is GRANTED.  Accordingly, HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, the Court-Appointed Administrator in this case IS GIVEN SPECIAL AUTHORITY ALONE, TO DISPOSE OF THE REAL PROPERTIES OF THE RODRIGUEZ ESTATE, as is necessary for the benefit of the estate.  Mr. Rodriguez is however directed to seek the approval of every disposition of a particular property or properties, for the Court to determine whether or not it will redound to the advantage of the estate.  Otherwise, the Court will revoke the disposition of the properties made.

      "Mr. Rodriguez is directed to strictly comply with this order and the amended decision rendered by this Court.

      SO ORDERED."

      Any sale, assignment or conveyance to any assignee executed by the Court Appointed Administrator has been clearly defined that it is executed to REDOUND mainly the estate, its heirs and their representatives, and they are required by the Court to strictly follow the ORDERS and AMENDED DECISION of the same intestate Court.  The ownership rights derived from the estate of the decendents Hermogenes and Antonio Rodriguez y Reyes were clearly recognized by the Courts and given only to its lawfully declared heirs.  On the other hand, assignees are STRICTLY REQUIRED by the Court to follow its Order to the letter. If they have NOT YET PERFECTED the documents and payment of taxes required, the conveyed rights to them shall strictly be CONDITIONAL and PROVISIONAL, and once they are found to have violated the Orders and put the estate at a disadvantage, or gave no consideration at all, this will REDOUND to a clear REVOCATION of the assignees' conveyed rights as specifically declared and ordered by the Honorable intestate Court.

       The Supreme Court Third Division, in the June 22, 2011 Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645 (and which became final last September 12, 2011), noted that on November 10, 2005, the adverse Court of Appeals April 16, 2002 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No.57417, though erroneous, had lapsed into finality by way of the Supreme Court Resolution in G.R. No.168648 dated August 1, 2005.  The effectivity of the finality of the Amended Decision was affected and was deemed of no force and effect until the Supreme Court Third Division pronounced in the December 4, 2009 Decision that the Court of Appeals HAD NO JURISDICTION over the RTC AMENDED DECISION and the instant case, and CA ruling was NULLIFIED together with the RTC Order dated February 21, 2007 that implemented the said void CA decision.  In the same Supreme Court ruling, the AMENDED DECISION was afterwards declared REINSTATED. But it was not until after the June 22, 2011 issued two dispositive pronouncements that the AMENDED DECISION had actually been REINSTATED when this instant case was compared to the void Court of Appeals Decision and categorized as an IMMUTABLE FINAL JUDGMENT.  The RTC Amended Decision had NO FORCE AND EFFECT from November 10, 2005 up to September 12, 2011 until after the Supreme Court issued an Entry of Judgment for the June 22, 2011 Decision. This means that the Heirship and Sole Authority to sign, convey and special power of attorney/authority issued by the Judicial Administrator in between that time (2005 up to 2011 September) clearly had no force and effect when his authority was suspended due to the effects of the CA Decision over the RTC Amended Decision.  Now that the heirship rights and authority to convey and sign of the above Court Order has been fully REINSTATED and declared IMMUTABLE, all conveyances, assignments and authority need to be RENEWED and/or RECONFIRMED.

      The Judicial Administrator Henry F. Rodriguez does not close the doors to those who have been faithful, did not violate the Amended Decision, Orders and agreements with the estate, and who wish to continue with their projects of recovery for the estate.  All they need and are required to do is to write a formal letter the Administrator (via registered mail or via email) if they want to have their projects RENEWED and/or RECONFIRMED together with their MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENTS with the estate to comply with the Order of the Court to BENEFIT and REDOUND the estate.  They will also be strictly required to submit reports concerning the progress of their projects and at what stage of the Court Orders were they able to accomplish to justify the continuity of such.     

COMPLEMENTARY SUPREME COURT DECISIONS DATED DECEMBER 4, 2009 AND JUNE 22, 2011 UPHOLDING THE IMMUTABILITY OF THE AMENDED DECISION IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. IR-1110; AND, THE MINISTERIAL DUTY OF THE NEW PRESIDING JUDGE TO IMPLEMENT THE SAME

      The AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999, with CERTIFICATE OF FINALITY dated January 17, 2000 was promulgated by the Honorable Intestate Court, RTC Branch 34, Iriga City, in the case Special Proceedings No. IR-1110: “In the Matter of the Heirship of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et. Al. / For: Heirship, Administratorship, and Settlement of the Estate,”  and since this was long declared as final and executory, the RTC ruling thus became immutable more than seven years ago as held by the RTC in the Order dated February 14, 2007.  

      Paragraph 5, pages 1 up to 2 of the February 14, 2007 RTC Order stressed: xxx"As stated by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases, once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable.  The Court (RTC), in the absence of any supervening events, cannot grant the relief prayed for by the Solicitor General or any of the oppositors in this case, as to do so will undeniably modify or alter the Amended Decision which has long become final and executory.  Moreover, the Solicitor General's standing in Court has been passed upon by this Court in the Amended Decision where he was declared to be not a real party in the proceedings. With more reason that the Solicitor General has no personality to continuously and repeatedly file various motions, comments, objections and opposition."xxx

This February 14, 2007 RTC Order dispositively DENIED all the Comments and Oppositions of the Land Registration Authority and DENR who both vehemently opposed thru the Office of the Solicitor General, as well as that of the other oppositors, including Jaime Robles. 

The Supreme Court, in different Minute Resolutions and Decisions, likewise DENIED or DISMISSED petitions for appeal on certiorari, mandamus and annulment of the said Amended Decision, notably among them the Supreme Court-G.R. No. 140271: Carola Santos, et al vs. Henry Rodriguez, et al, in the Entry of Judgment dated February 22, 2000 for the Resolution dated November 29, 1999; in SC-G.R. No. 142477: Florencia Rodriguez vs. Hon. Lore R. Valencia-Bagalacsa, et.al., in the Entry of Judgment dated September 5, 2000 for the Resolution dated July 31, 2000; and in Supreme Court-G.R. No.140915:Jaime Robles vs. Henry F. Rodriguez, for the Resolution dated March 1, 2004.

      The Supreme Court in G.R. No. 168648:Jaime M. Robles vs. Henry F. Rodriguez, in the Minute Resolution dated August 1, 2005 and Entry of Judgment dated November 10, 2005 issued by the Third Division Clerk of Court, gave finality to the erroneous Court of Appeals Resolution of CA-G.R.SP No.57417 dated April 16, 2002.  But, thereafter, the Supreme Court Third Division, voting as a division (en banc) body with all five (5) Justices concurring in a later case for clarification and certiorari, SC-G.R.182645 in the Decision dated December 4, 2009, the latter ruling superseded and clearly reversed the Minute Resolution and Entry of Judgment of G.R. No. 168648 issued by the Supreme Court Third Division Clerk of Court when the Supreme Court Third Division, as a division body by itself, voted and concurred to nullify the Court of Appeals Resolution together with the RTC Order of February 21, 2007; and, afterwhich, the same Third Division of the Highest Court of the land reinstated the long final and executory RTC Amended Decision, having committed no errors. Then, on June 22, 2011, the Supreme Court Special Third Division, this time voted as a body, promulgating a new Decision, one of the dispositive ruling in it was clearly issued to uphold and complement the December 4, 2009 Decision, and, declared that the void Court of Appeals Decision was unlike the RTC Iriga City Amended Decision since the "instant case" of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 did not show that it falls on any of the only categories of exceptions to the rule of immutability, and since the Amended Decision did not fall on any of the only three categories, having committed no errors, and long lapsed into finality, and categorized as immutable.  

      The SUPREME COURT THIRD DIVISION, in the case G.R. No.182645: "Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles", the DECISION dated December 4, 2009 REINSTATED the RTC AMENDED DECISION “having committed no errors,” as opposed to the erroneous Court of Appeals G.R.SP No.57417 April 16, 2002 Decision, in the very words of the Supreme Court cited in "Ong vs. PDIC," xxx In "In The Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al, and the Settlement of Their Estates," WE (the Supreme Court) nullified for lack of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of an appeal from the RTC Decision which had already (long) lapsed into finality for failure of the party to file a Record on Appeal within the reglementary period”xxx (cited case in SC-G.R. No. 175116, page 10, paragraph 4).

      Thereafter, in the same case of SC-G.R. No.182645, the Supreme Court PARTLY GRANTED the Very Urgent Motion of Jaime Robles in the December 15, 2010 Resolution, setting aside the December 4, 2009 Decision as a matter of procedure, to give way to the Robles arguments. Jaime Robles prayed for two things to be granted by the Supreme Court in this case: a)the Supreme Court to set aside the December 4, 2009 Decision so he could submit his comments as an indispensible third party; and, b)to affirm the finality of his Appointment as a forced heir and Judicial Administrator; but his urgent motion was only partly granted, and obviously got the first prayer so he could submit his comments to the Supreme Court; the second prayer was not granted for obvious reasons that he was already declared by the Amended Decision an alleged “sixth” degree collateral descendant and disqualified from being an heir in the presence of nearer ones.  Besides this, and I restate, the Supreme Court already nullified the Court of Appeals Decision for he has not complied with the mandatory and jurisdictional requirement in filing a Record on Appeal.  

     The same  SUPREME COURT SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION, after having received the Comments of respondent Jaime Robles, issued a new DECISION in June 22, 2011 upheld the deposition of the December 4, 2009 Decision which had previously reinstated the RTC Amended Decision.  The June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision, in connection with the December 4, 2009 Decision, declared that (December 4, 2009 dispositive portion of decision) the assailed Court of Appeals Decision, being erroneous, was nullified by the Supreme Court and categorized as a void judgment, was (June 22, 2011 dispositive portion of decision) UNLIKE the Amended Decision of RTC Branch 34 Iriga City, the “instant case,” (which had long been final and became immutable having committed no errors) did not show that it fell on any of the (three) enumerated categories (above) which are the only exceptions to the rule of the immutability of final judgments, which are (1)correction of clerical errors, (2)use of so called nunc-pro-tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3)void judgments.  Obviously, the void Court of Appeals Decision fell into this last category.

   That in the same case in SC-G.R. No.182645, Rene Pascual, who filed the Supreme Court petition for certiorari, had raised the issue to the Supreme Court as to which Decision should be implemented: the immutable RTC Amended Decision or the erroneous CA Decision.  The Supreme Court declared that:

“Considering the foregoing, the Court (Supreme Court) finds it no longer necessary to address the issues raised by the petitioner.”  

The “foregoing,” meant that the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court deposition, which declared the long final and executory RTC Amended Decision, having become immutable, and, the erroneous Court of Appeals, having been nullified and thus became a void judgment as elucidated by the Highest Court, found that it was no longer necessary to address the said issues raised by Pascual, for they had long been established already by the RTC Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and thus, Pascual, being an original non-party to the instant case in RTC-Iriga City, was eventually denied and his petition for certiorari dismissed with prejudice;

The first Rene Pascual SC petition in SC-G.R. No.182645 now dismissed with prejudice, his second petition for clarificatory judgment was also met with the same fate and was also denied in the case SC-G.R. No.202999:"Rene Pascual vs. Henry F. Rodriguez and Jaime Robles" in the Resolution dated October 10, 2012, with the Entry of Judgment issued on January 2, 2013;

 The Supreme Court dismissal of the Rene Pascual petition for certiorari in SC-G.R. No.182645 was a technicality, him (Pascual) being an original non-party to the instant case in RTC-Iriga City, but, the Supreme Court June 22, 2011 Decision’s dismissal of the Pascual SC petition for certiorari due to his non-party status in the instant case did not prevent nor limit the Highest Court from ruling and arriving at the meritorious portion, when the Supreme Court declared a favorable deposition for the estate: that of categorizing the long and final RTC Amended Decision as immutable having committed no errors, which was unlike the erroneous and nullified Court of Appeals Decision, which cannot become immutable being a void judgment.  The Supreme Court, in almost all of the cases disposed, always preferred dispositions which cited merits over technicalities, and as such, this ruling validates the Supreme Court disposition when they emphasized a point: xxx"It is true that the judgment of the (trial and appellate) courts in the present case could not bind (the PNB) for the latter is not a party to the case. However, this does not mean that the (trial and appellate) courts are precluded from making findings which are necessary for a just, complete and proper resolution of the issues raised in the present case."- G.R. No.170540: Agatep vs. Rodriguez.

With the Supreme Court having declared to all and having ruled now "with prejudice" against those who still seek to question the immutability of the RTC Amended Decision, it is now ministerial for the RTC Court to reinstate the entire records of the case SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS No. IR-1110, recognize the finality of the Amended Decision, and order the continuance of its execution, Writ and Orders. 

A SHORT BUT SIGNIFICANT SUMMARY OF THE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES ESTATE HISTORY

      As I have discussed this again and again, there was no such thing as OCT #01-4. What was accepted by the then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on February 23, 1976 at Malacanang was the  "Titulo de Propriedad de Terrenos of 1826-1861-1891-1894, Royal Decree 01-4" and not an OCT! By virtue of the surrender of the owner's copy for safekeeping of the "Titulo de Propriedad of 1891(Royal Decree 01-4) Protocol, together with the parcels of survey plans duly recorded under Expediente Record Nos. 406-407-408-409 that was submitted under the Court of Land Registration during the Spanish administration, the Spanish title was the only one which has complied under Presidential Decree No. 892, and was considered duly registered under the Phil-American Insular Act #496 - Land Registration Act, known as the Torrens System of land registration, embodied in Presidential Decree No. 1143, and duly reconstituted in the name of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez y Reyes under Transfer Certificate of Title #12022 in 1979 by the Registry of Deeds of Rizal.  In 1995, the Court of Appeals admitted as facts of evidence the ownership of the heirs of the late Hermogenes and Antonio Rodriguez under Titulo de Propriedad of 1891 and TCT No. 12022 in CA-G.R. SP No.33806 in the Decision dated June 22, 1995, facts of which were affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Entry of Judgment dated January 15, 1996 for the Resolution dated December 4, 1995 in SC-G.R. No. L-120811.

      Before the surrender of Titulo de Propriedad of 1891 (Royal Decree 01-4 Protocol) in compliance to Presidential Decree #892, sometime way back in 1902, brothers Hermogenes Rodriguez y Reyes  and Antonio Rodriguez y Reyes (NOT MIGUEL, who is a "Juez de Primera Instancia" of Tayabas as per Phil. Archives records, AND WHO IS NOT THE OWNER OF 01-4!) applied for titling under Act #496 some 27,000 hectares of land and was duly issued a Torrens Title - OCT #369, GLRO Decree #297, Case No. 386 - RG #571, promulgated in 1911 by the "Juzgado del Primera Instancia de Manila," later becoming as the "Juzgado del Primera Instancia, Tercera Divicion del Provincia de Rizal" under the Phil-American Insular government. In 1910 Don Hermogenes Rodriguez died, and being without issue, all his landholdings were inherited by Don Antonio Rodriguez. In 1918, Don Antonio Rodriguez died, leaving all his landholdings to his son, Don Macario Rodriguez and daughter Flora Rodriguez. Flora Rodriguez died without issue and all her landholding rights were inherited by Don Macario Rodriguez. Don Macario Rodriguez fathered DELFIN and CONSUELO RODRIGUEZ, who both inherited the landholdings of DON MACARIO. Delfin Rodriguez fathered HENRY and CERTEZA, while Consuelo Rodriguez Pellosis gave birth to a sole daughter, ROSALINA. Thus the three became the true inheritors of the entire HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES ESTATE as proclaimed by SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. IR-1110 AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 1999.

The said RTC Amended Decision was DECLARED FINAL, EXECUTORY and IMMUTABLE that PRECLUDES or PROHIBITS EVEN THE SUPREME COURT from modifying/altering the said judgment in SC-G.R. No. 182645 Decision dated June 22, 2011, with SC Entry of Judgment issued on September 12, 2011.  This RTC Amended Decision was unlike the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. SP No.57417 Resolution dated April 16, 2002, categorized as a VOID JUDGMENT when the said Appellate ruling was NULLIFIED by the December 4, 2009 Supreme Court Decision, since the CA Resolution lacked jurisdiction over the said RTC Amended Decision.

SUPREME COURT G.R. No. 175116 Jerry Ong vs. Phil. Deposit Insurance Corp. DECISION PENNED BY JUSTICE DIOSDADO PERALTA CITES AS JURISPRUDENCE THE SC-G.R. No. 182645 December 4, 2009 HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ ESTATE RULING

      The Honorable Supreme Court Justice Diosdado Peralta, who ruled on the June 22, 2011 Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645: In The Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez / Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles, the Supreme Court Decision which dismissed the petition for certiorari of SC Petitioner Rene Pascual for being an original non-party to the case, uses the December 4, 2009 ruling (SCRA 607 Vol. pages 770-777) of the Intestate Estate in writing a Decision in the Supreme Court case G.R. No.175116: On vs. PDIC, specifically on pages 10 and 11 of the aforesaid Supreme Court Decision.  The said Supreme Court Decision of Justice Peralta had, in effect, together with the categorical declaration of immutability in the June 22, 2011 ruling, upheld the RTC Iriga City Branch 34 AMENDED DECISION in SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS No. IR-1110, when the Supreme Court ruling distinctly discussed thus: 

      xxx"Thus, WE (Supreme Court) find NO ERROR COMMITTED (by the CA) when it sustained the RTC's dismissal of petitioner's appeal for failure to comply with the rules.

               In In the Matter of the Heirship(Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al. v. Jaime Robles, WE (The SUPREME COURT) NULLIFIED THE CA DECISION  FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AN APPEAL FROM THE RTC DECISION WHICH HAD ALREADY LAPSED INTO FINALITY FOR FAILURE OF THE PARTY TO FILE A RECORD ON APPEAL WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD xxx"

  

     The latter SUPREME COURT DECISION which cites the ruling in the Intestate Estate proceedings case clearly establishes the fact that the RTC Iriga City Branch 34 COMMITED NO ERRORS in the issuance of a Certificate of Finality for the AMENDED DECISION of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110, and which was UNLIKE THE COURT OF APPEALS CA-G.R. SP No.57417 Decision dated April 16, 2002, an ERRONEOUS RULING, having no jurisdiction over the RTC Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 Amended Decision when the CA petitioner Jaime Robles did not file the requisite RECORD ON APPEAL which is mandatory and jurisdictional.  Thus the June 22, 2011 Decision of Justice Peralta DID NOT CONFLICT with the December 4, 2009 Decision of now retired Justice Chico-Nazario under the DOCTRINE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, both rulings having gained finality: the December 4, 2009 SC Decision of the Regular Third Division having lapsed into finality and used as jurisprudence more than a year later by SC Justice Peralta and even SC Justice Mendoza in another SC Case: Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Development Authority both in the year 2010; on the other hand, the SC June 22, 2011 Decision may have dismissed the petition for certiorari of Rene Pascual, but also separately and distinctly discussed that the AMENDED DECISION of the Honorable Intestate Court RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City DID NOT FALL ON ANY OF THE THREE CATEGORIES which classifies the said RTC Amended Decision not falling into any of the three exemptions in the rule of immutability of judgments.  This clearly fortifies and solidly cements the "res judicata" status of the RTC IRIGA CITY AMENDED DECISION.

GROSS MISCONDUCT AGAINST A JUDGE WHO REFUSES TO ISSUE A WRIT UPON MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF A FINAL & EXECUTORY JUDGMENT

      The AMENDED DECISION in Special Proceedings No. IR-1110, promulgated on August 13, 1999, and which was issued a Certificate of Finality on January 17, 2000, was issued a WRIT OF EXECUTION on February 28, 2000 by the RTC Branch 34, Fifth Judicial Region, Iriga City.

      On February 22, 2000, an Entry of Judgment in SC-G.R. #140271 for the Resolution dated November 29,1999 was issued by the Supreme Court, DENYING the appeal on certiorari filed by Carola F. Santos against Henry F. Rodriguez and the Amended Decision.

     On September 5, 2000, another Entry of Judgment in SC-G.R. #142477 for the Resolution dated July 31, 2000 was issued by the Supreme Court, DENYING another appeal on certiorari filed by Florencia M. Rodriguez against the Hon. Lore V. Bagalacsa and the Amended Decision. 

      On April 16, 2002, two years later after the issuance of two(2) Supreme Court Entries of Judgments, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP#57417 issued a Resolution/Decision which NULLIFIED the entire RTC proceedings, declaring the above cited case a "complete nullity."  On the basis of the hierarchy of Courts, that all Resolutions would come from the Highest Court of the land, the Honorable RTC magistrate who decided the case continued to issue Orders in the implementation of the above cited Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 upon indorsement from the RTC Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 34.

    On June 15, 2005, the Deciding Magistrate issued Orders of indorsement to the different Sheriffs of the RTC Courts where the properties of Estate of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez were found and duly indorsed thru the Executive Judge, the serving and execution of the Orders issued in the said instant case.

    On February 14, 2007, upon indorsement from the Acting Pairing/Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 34, and on the strength of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5-98, the Deciding Magistrate issued a final Order, DENYING again the Comments and Oppositions filed by the LRA and the DENR thru the Office of the Solicitor General, as well as those of the Comments of the oppositors, the RTC Court pronouncing "that the AMENDED DECISION had already become final and executory more than 'seven years ago'."

     On February 21, 2007, just merely three(3) days upon assumption of office as Acting Presiding Judge in RTC Branch 34, Judge Lelu Contreras issued an Order MOTU PROPIO, implementing the April 16, 2002 CA Decision.  This RTC Court order should never have been issued, for it violated the constitution and the principle of the hierarchy of Courts, together with the principle that NO CO-EQUAL COURT/JUDGE CAN VACATE, SET ASIDE OR REVERSE THE RULING OF ANOTHER CO-EQUAL COURT/JUDGE, BUT ONLY THRU AN EN BANC/SUPERIOR RULING.        (I am now preparing a separate case for this.)

     On December 4, 2009, the Supreme Court (Third Division), in G.R. #182645/Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles, NULLIFIED the April 16, 2002 CA Decision and its RTC implementing Order dated February 21, 2007. The aforesaid Supreme Court Decision also pronounced the AMENDED DECISION of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 REINSTATED.  The said SC Decision lapsed into finality and had become part of the law of the land.(SCRA Vol.607, p.770-777, Dec. 4, 2009).

     On December 15, 2010, the Supreme Court Special Third Division, in the same G.R. #182645/Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles, PARTLY GRANTED the appeal of respondent Jaime Robles and set aside the December 4, 2009 Decision, so that Jaime Robles may be able to file his late appeal.

      On June 22, 2011, the Supreme Court Special Third Division, in the same G.R. #182645/Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles, made two rulings in this Decision, as follows:

         (1)Categorically declaring the RTC AMENDED DECISION in Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 IMMUTABLE, the aforesaid RTC instant case described as "THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE INSTANT CASE FELL ON ANY OF THE THREE(3) CATEGORIES OF EXCEPTIONS IN IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENTS such as 1.Clerical errors, 2.Use of Nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and 3.Void judgments.  UNLIKE AMENDED DECISION, which did not commit any error, the CA DECISION was an ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT and was NULLIFIED, and thus fell on the third category being a void judgment.  The Supreme Court, before dismissing the Pascual SC petition for certiorari further announced "WITH PREJUDICE" any other petition or appeal questioning the AMENDED DECISION.

          (2)Dismissed the petition for certiorari of Rene Pascual on a technicality for being a NON-PARTY to the original case in RTC Branch 34 Iriga City Special Proceedings case.

     The Supreme Court June 22, 2011 Decision was issued an Entry of Judgment on September 12, 2011 and was promptly transmitted to the Courts of Origin, the RTC Branch 34 Iriga City and the Court of Appeals on December 9, 2011.

     On March 27, 2014, Mr. HENRY RODRIGUEZ filed a Manifestation with the new Magistrate of the RTC Branch 34, Iriga City, requesting that the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision/Ruling be now implemented concerning the IMMUTABILITY of the AMENDED DECISION over the February 21, 2007 RTC Order which was already VOIDED by the Supreme Court December 4, 2009 Decision, and considering that the said RTC Order was based on a VOID CA JUDGMENT, the RTC Court has no more discretionary disposition to implement the February 21, 2007 Order and can no longer IGNORE the Supreme Court June 22, 2011 Decision.  (Similar to this situation, the Administrative Case cited below is the same and exact ruling that will befall the new RTC Magistrate if he refuses to heed the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision...)  

  

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

MANILA

EN BANC

JOHN SIY LIM,
  Complainant,

A.M. No. RTJ-02-1705
 May 5, 2003

-versus-

JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA, 
           Respondent. 

D E C I S I O N

  

 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: 

       Litigation must at some time be terminated, even at the risk of occasional errors, for public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party.

         In a sworn Letter-Complaint dated November 27, 2001 filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), John Siy Lim charged Judge Antonio J. Fineza, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 131, Caloocan City, with gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct for his refusal to issue a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 14542.

          Complainant alleged that he is the defendant in Civil Case No. 14542, "Tomas See Tuazon vs. John Siy Lim," raffled to respondent judge’s sala.  On December 2, 1991, respondent decided the case in his favor.  Dissatisfied with the verdict, both parties seasonably filed their respective motions for reconsideration.  On November 16, 1992, respondent issued an Order reversing his Decision.  Thus, complainant appealed to the Court of Appeals.  On March 31, 1995, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision reversing respondent’s assailed Order and reinstating his Decision, prompting plaintiff Tomas See Tuazon  to file with this Court a petition for review on certiorari.  Complainant also alleged that on October 3, 2000, this Court rendered its Decision denying the petition and affirming the Decision of the Court of Appeals.  Plaintiff Tuazon filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated March 7, 2001 for having been filed out of time.  On March 16, 2001, an Entry of Judgment was issued and eventually the records of the case were remanded to the lower court for execution of the judgment.

law

         On June 14, 2001, complainant filed with respondent’s court a motion for execution.  On June 22, 2001, plaintiff Tuazon filed an opposition thereto contending that his Motion to Recall Resolution dated March 7, 2001 and the Entry of Judgment is still pending resolution by this Court.

        Complainant further alleged that on September 10, 2001, respondent judge issued an order denying his motion for execution for being premature. Respondent was not being honest considering that as early as August 13, 2001, this Court ordered that plaintiff’s Motion to Recall Resolution dated March 7, 2001 and Entry of Judgment be expunged from the records.

        In his comment on the complaint, respondent denied the charges leveled against him, claiming that complainant’s allegations are untrue and misleading.  He explained that he denied complainant’s motion for execution because it was prematurely filed.  Moreover, he did not resolve complainant’s motion for execution immediately because he filed a wrong pleading.  He should have submitted a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his motion for execution.  Instead, he filed a Manifestation and Comment informing respondent that this Court dismissed plaintiff’s Motion to Recall Resolution dated March 7, 2001 and Entry of Judgment.c

w

     On March 17, 2002, the OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, submitted its Report recommending that respondent judge be held liable for gross ignorance of the law and that a fine of P10,000.00 be imposed upon him, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.r

       Pursuant to the Resolution dated June 26, 2002 of this Court (Third Division), this case was re-docketed as a regular administrative case and was referred to Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. 

        On October 3, 2002, Justice Dadole submitted her Report. Her findings and recommendation are reproduced hereunder:

                                                     x    x    x 

       "There is no dispute that the subject decision in Civil Case No. 14542 had already become final and executory.  In fact, an entry of judgment was already issued by the Honorable Supreme Court where this case was elevated. Hence, as such, execution of the said decision should have been issued as a matter of right, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of procedure, as amended, which reads:

        ‘Section 1.  Execution upon judgment or final orders. -  Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.’

         "In other words, it becomes a ministerial duty on the part of the court to order execution of its final and executory judgment.  This is basic legal principle which every trial judge ought to know.

         "In denying the issuance of the writ of execution in compliance with the clear mandate of the above-quoted procedural law, respondent judge either deliberately disregarded this law or demonstrated ignorance thereof. Judge Fineza’s justification that said Motion for Execution was prematurely filed considering plaintiff Tomas See Tuazon’s Motion to Recall Supreme Court Resolution dated 7 March 2001 and Entry of Judgment dated 16 March 2001 was still pending before the Supreme Court is thus misplaced.   Basic is the rule that a judge cannot amend a final decision.  There was nothing more to be done, in such a case, except to execute the judgment.

law

       "The explanation of Judge Fineza that it is not true that he incurred a delay in resolving complainant’s motion for writ of execution deserves scant consideration.  The records reveal that complainant’s Motion for Execution was filed by complainant on 14 June 2001 with a denial for trivial and flimsy reasons.  A total of eight-eighty (88) days was, therefore, incurred by respondent.  An actuation suggestive not only of bad faith on his part but also manifest delay in the administration of justice.  For a Motion for Execution is an uncontroverted and non-litigious pleading, most especially if the subject decision is already final and executory.  Thus, respondent judge clearly deprived the complainant of what is due him under the judgment which was already final and executory.

        "Moreover, with respondent judge’s state of being an RTC Judge for quite a number of years already, Investigating Justice cannot believe that he does not know how to distinguish a motion that is filed for justifiable and valid reason from that which is filed merely for the purpose of delay.

aw

          "In the same vein, respondent judge exhibited gross ignorance of the law when he assumed that plaintiff’s Motion to Recall Supreme Court Resolution dated 7 March 2001 and Entry of Judgment dated 16 March 2001 could stay a final and executory decision by the Honorable Supreme Court.  Settled is the rule that once a judgment has become final, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict by subsequent suits on the same issues filed by the same parties or by orders for clarification by the magistrates themselves (Buaya vs. Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc., 342 SCRA 576 [2000]). 

                                                x     x     x
 virtual law library

       "Even assuming arguendo that respondent cannot be faulted for ignorance of the law, he deliberately allowed himself to be used as a tool or instrument of the losing party in that civil case by deliberately favoring the latter in order to frustrate the enjoyment of complainant’s right by virtue of a favorable decision.c

            "While judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account of occasional mistakes or errors of judgments, it is highly imperative that they should be conversant with fundamental and basic legal principles in order to merit the confidence of the citizenry.   Respondent judge has shown lack of familiarity with our laws, rules and regulations as to undermine the public confidence in the integrity of the courts (Cacayoren vs. Suller, 344 SCRA 159, 167 [2002]; Rodriguez vs. Bonifacio, 344 SCRA 519 [2000]).

RECOMMENDATION

          "On the basis of the foregoing evaluation and the evidence presented by both the complainant and the respondent, the undersigned Investigating Justice recommends that respondent Judge Antonio J. Fineza be made to pay a fine in the amount of P30,000 for gross ignorance of the law in connection with his refusal to issue an Order for the Execution of the Judgment in Civil Case No. 14542, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely."  (Emphasis supplied.)

          While we agree with Justice Dadole that respondent judge should be administratively sanctioned for "his refusal to issue an Order for the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 14542," we cannot go along with her conclusion that he did so due to "gross ignorance of the law."   We believe that respondent knew very well that the subject judgment was final and executory and that, therefore, he should grant complainant’s motion for execution, but he deliberately refused to do so.

          Justice Dadole correctly stated that "it is a basic legal principle which every trial judge ought to know" that once a final judgment becomes executory, "it becomes a ministerial duty on the part of the court to order its execution." The rule is so elementary that it is highly unlikely not to be known by respondent judge. In denying complainant’s motion for execution, Justice Dadole accurately found that respondent judge "deliberately allowed himself to be used as a tool or instrument of the losing party in that civil case by deliberately favoring the latter in order to frustrate the enjoyment of complainant’s right by virtue of a favorable decision." Such actuation, as she aptly concluded, is "suggestive not only of bad faith on his (respondent judge’s) part but also manifest delay in the administration of justice." Undoubtedly, respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct.

          Gross misconduct has been defined as the transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence.  In Spouses Adriano and Hilda Monterola vs. Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., we ruled that "the observance of the law, which respondent judge ought to know, is required of every judge.  When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; x x x failure to consider a basic and elemental rule, a law or principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and the title he holds or is too viscious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority."

        Respondent should be reminded that the exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When the judge himself becomes a transgressor of the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary itself. 

        Under Section 8(3), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, gross misconduct is classified as a serious administrative offense punishable by any of the sanctions enumerated in Section 11 of the same Rule, thus:

"Sec. 11.  Sanctions. -  A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:

"1.  Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations; Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave benefits;

"2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or

"3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00." 

        Consequently, the fine of P30,000.00 recommended by Justice Dadole is in order. 
          
        WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Antonio J. Fineza is found GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT and is hereby FINED in the amount of P30,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely.

            SO ORDERED.

cralawDavide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Quisumbing, J., on leave.