A Cited Case for Gross Ignorance of the Law
ON A MAGISTRATE / JUDGE WHO REFUSES TO EXECUTE FINAL JUDGMENT:
"Complainant filed a case against Judge Patricio accusing him of gross ignorance of the law, manifest bias and partiality for refusing to execute a judgment which was already final and executory. The rule is that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. Thus, the Supreme Court held that Judge (Patricio) demonstrated ignorance of such rule by repeatedly refusing to execute the final and executory judgment (of conviction against the accused.)
"Complainant filed a case against Judge Patricio accusing him of gross ignorance of the law, manifest bias and partiality for refusing to execute a judgment which was already final and executory. The rule is that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. Thus, the Supreme Court held that Judge (Patricio) demonstrated ignorance of such rule by repeatedly refusing to execute the final and executory judgment (of conviction against the accused.)
The
rules on execution are comprehensive enough for a judge not to know how
to apply them or to be confused by any auxiliary incidents. The issuance
of a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment is
ministerial. In other words, a judge is not given the discretion whether
or not to implement the judgment. He is to effect execution without
delay and supervise implementation strictly in accordance with the
judgment. Judge (Patricio’s) acts unmistakably exhibit gross ignorance of
the law."
Jesus D. Carbajosa v. Judge Hannibal R. Patricio, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, President Roxas, Capiz, A.M. No. MTJ-13-1834, October 2, 2013.
(Credits to LEXOTERICA BLAWG on the information - rbg54)
(Credits to LEXOTERICA BLAWG on the information - rbg54)
.tif)
No comments:
Post a Comment