Ochoa v. Tolentino

PLANA, J.:

Complainants, who were the plaintiffs in an unlawful detainer case (Elisa Vda. de Ochoa and Aida O. Veloso vs. Johnny Galicia and Gertrudes Galicia, Civil Case No. 214063) assigned to Branch IV of the City Court of Manila presided over by the respondent, have filed a sworn complaint against the respondent judge for undue delay in resolving a motion for reconsideration and partiality. Regarding the first charge, it was alleged - That the parties in the said (unlawful detainer) case submitted a compromise agreement ...

which was approved by the respondent judge in the decision rendered in said case. That the pertinent terms and conditions of said compromise agreement ... are - 1.

The defendants admit and acknowledge their balance of the rental due and payable unto the plaintiff the sum of P2,700.00 and hereby obligate themselves to pay same in installment basis at the rate of P2,000.00 a month, payable within the first five (5) days of each month, the first payment thereof, shag be made on or before January 5, 1973. 2. That it is an express agreement by and among the parties herein that failure of the defendants to pay two consecutive installments on date it falls due of the P2,000.00 as herein above stated and/or failure to pay the daily installments on current rentals as hereinabove specified for a period of fifteen (15) days, the defendants agree to vacate voluntarily the premises within a period of five (5) days from notice in writing, otherwise execution shall immediately take place.

That on June 15, 1973, after due notice to the defendants. . .

., the plaintiffs filed a petition for execution, alleging failure of the defendants to pay the installments from February up to the date of the filing of said petition, which the respondent Judge granted, and by virtue of which, the corresponding Writ of Execution was issued. That the defendants sought the reconsideration of the order of execution, (which was denied). That upon a Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendants, the respondent Judge granted the same, recalling the Writ of Execution and granting said defendants a period of five (5) days within which to pay the unpaid installments.

That on September 7, 1973, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated August 21, 1973 (recalling the Writ of Execution) on the following grounds: l. The defendants failed to avail of the period of grace given them in said order within which to pay the unpaid installments; 2. Assuming that the tender of P 4,900.00 on August 29, 1973, or the next day, be considered as substantial compliance by stretching liberality of construction to its breaking point in favor of the defendants, it is an undeniable fact that the defendants defaulted in two successive installments; 3.

The order dated August 21, 1973 runs counter to law. The previous two grounds were under the assumption that the order in question is in accordance with law; 4. Finally, the order in question was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction.

That on September 17, 1973 the defendants filed their Answer to said motion and the plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration was deemed submitted as of that date. That on January 3, 1974, the plaintiffs filed a Manifestation and Petition itemizing the outstanding judgment obligations of the defendants as of that date, which were payable within the first five (5) days of each month, and the default in the payment of two successive installments of which entitled the plaintiffs to an immediate execution, which are as follows: P,900.00, for June, 1973, including the unpaid balance for May, 1973 2,000.00, for July, 1973 2,000.00, for August 1973 2,000.00, for Sept., 1973 2,000.00, for Oct., 1973 2,000.00, for Nov., 1973 700.00, for Dec., 1973