V.C. Ponce Co v. Eduarte

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Forwarded to the Court by the Preliminary Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman, pursuant to its Memorandum dated June 23, 19951 are the records of Ombudsman Case No. OMB-1-94-2700 entitled "V.C. Ponce Co., Inc. v. A. Cajigas, et al." This administrative complaint was filed on August 31 19942 by V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. and Vicente C. Ponce, founder, president and owner of complainant company, against Judge Henedino P. Eduarte, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 20, Cauayan, Isabela, for gross neglect of duty. The complaint alleges that respondent judge refused to correct an obviously erroneous computation of the money judgment in Civil Case No. Br.

20-1546, entitled "Victor G. Valencia v. V.C. Ponce Co., Inc." Likewise impleaded as party-respondent is Sheriff Anuedo G. Cajigas of RTC, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite, for incompetence and/or misconduct in implementing an allegedly excessive levy based on the erroneous computation of money judgment in the civil case. In a Resolution dated 15 November 1995,3 the Court required respondents to file their respective comments on the administrative complaint.

After respondents filed their respective comments,4 the Court issued a Resolution dated November 10, 1997,5 dispensing with the filing of a consolidated reply and referring the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation. The OCA subsequently submitted a Memorandum on March 3, 1998 making the following factual summation: I [A] In a case entitled " Victor Valencia vs. V.C. Ponce Co., Inc."

filed with the RTC, Branch 20, Cauayan, Isabela, respondent Judge decided on May 20, 1987 in favor of plaintiff therein and ordered herein complainant to pay the said plaintiff the following: 1. P65,000.00 in unpaid allowances plus legal interest starting April 1978; 2. P103,740.00 in unpaid rentals plus legal interest starting April 1978; 3.

P16,000.00 as costs for demobilization of plaintiff's equipment; 4. P200,000.00 as moral damages; 5. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; 6.

P50,000.00 as nominal damages; 7. P10,000.00 as costs of litigation; 8. P109,748.00 as attorney's fees; and 9.

P321,150.00 as costs of equipment unreturned; the total of which amounted to P975,638.00 without legal interest still being applied. [B] This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on February 25, 1995 in all other aspects except with respect to the following modification: In resume, the award of moral damages is hereby reduced to P30,000.00, exemplary damages to P30,000.00, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation to P40,000.00 while the award of nominal damages is eliminated. Or a total of P605,890.00 without legal interest still being applied; [C] When respondent Sheriff was trying to enforce the writ of execution issued in favor of therein plaintiff, he was insisting that the judgment debt was P1,815,360.78, using "an obviously erroneous computation prepared by Valencia".

This was greater than the amount granted by the trial court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals by P1,209,470.78; [D] Complainants, therefore, filed with Respondent Judge a very urgent manifestation with motion to correct the computation of the judgment debt; [E] Plaintiff therein, Valencia, opposed said motion and claimed that the judgment debt should in fact have been P2,947,978.20; [F] Respondent judge refused to correct the error of respondent Sheriff in an order he issued February 8, 1994; [G] Complainants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said order but respondent Judge "decided to sit on" said motion.

He even granted Valencia's motion for issuance of alias writ of execution despite the pendency of said motion for reconsideration; [H] On April 14, 1994, respondent Sheriff levied on complainant's properties in Parañaque with a fair market value of P23,268,000.00; [I] On April 22, 1994, complainants were notified that the public auction sale of the levied properties were to be held on May 19, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. in front of the Municipal Hall of Paranaque; [J] Complainants were able to secure a Temporary Restraining Order from the Court of Appeals enjoining the public auction sale; [K] On June 16, 1994, the Court of Appeals granted the writ of preliminary injunction Upon sufficient showing that the respondent judge has neglected a clear legal duty of correcting the obviously erroneous computation of the money judgment in the case below, subject of the writ of execution, and consequently, the respondent sheriff acted without authority of law and made an excessive levy.

II Respondent Sheriff, on his part, in his comment stated that: In a decision promulgated November 15, 1994 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.SP No. 33925, entitled "V.C. Ponce Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Henedino P. Eduarte, Judge, RTC, Branch 20, Cauayan, Isabela and Anuedo G. Cajigas, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Bacoor, Cavite" said court ruled to annul the Writ of Execution dated January 18, 1994; and Since said decision "annuls the writ of execution that was carried out xxx therefore, the ruling has the effect of declaring that as if no execution took place. On this point, respondent believes that he has done nothing irregular or anomalous."

III Respondent Judge, on his part, in his Comment stated that: He rendered a decision on May 20, 1987 in a case entitled "Victor Valencia vs. V.C. Ponce Co., Inc." in favor of Valencia; Ponce appealed but the Court of Appeals in its decision promulgated February 25, 1992 affirmed the decision with modification on the amount of damages; He issued an order for the execution of the decision as modified by the Court of Appeals; Unknown to him, Valencia must have prepared his own computation of the interest of the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals increasing the amount to be paid by Ponce. This is because his court received a motion from Ponce praying that the computation of the interest made by Valencia be corrected; He denied said motion in his order dated February 8, 1994 as follows: The Court denies the very urgent manifestation and motion to correct and prayer to stay enforcement of the writ of execution for the reason that what the Court is enforcing in the writ of execution is the dispositive portion of the decision of this Court as modified by the Court of Appeals.

It has nothing to do with the computation made by the plaintiff. On March 7, 1994, his court received Ponce's motion for reconsideration of this order. He did not resolve it, however, because it was never brought to his attention.

He came to know of said motion only on October 21, 1994 when he received the complaint of Ponce which had been filed with the Ombudsman. He resolved said motion on October 28, 1994; He had this matter investigated. It turned out that Mrs. Imelda Severino, the Criminal Docket Clerk, received on March 7, 1994 the motion for reconsideration because Mrs. Valenta Ramirez, the Civil Docket Clerk, was on leave as her (Mrs. Ramirez) mother was seriously ill (her mother did in fact die later during the same month); Mrs. Severino placed said motion for reconsideration on top of the table of Mrs. Ramirez as the case record was locked inside the steel cabinet.

Mr. Roque Clemente, the Process Server, who he had designated as OIC-Civil Docket Clerk, had not yet arrived in the court when said motion for reconsideration had been placed on top of Mrs. Ramirez's table; When Mr. Clemente arrived, he decided to place the motion for reconsideration inside another folder so it would not get lost, considering that Atty.

Madriaga, their Branch Clerk of Court, who held the key to the filing cabinet had not yet arrived. His intention was to place it in the proper case record folder as soon as the steel cabinet could be opened; Mr. Clemente left to serve summons at 10:00 A.M. with the motion still inserted inside another case folder as Atty. Madriaga had not yet arrived at that time; When Mr. Clemente reported for work the next morning, he discovered that the top of the table of Mrs. Ramirez was clean. He assumed that whoever put the records inside the steel filing cabinet placed said motion in the Valencia case record folder; Even though Mr. Clemente brought out the Valencia case record folder for the hearing on March 11, 1994, he did not check whether or not said motion for reconsideration was attached onto said case record folder; He took his one month vacation in April 1994, returning for work in May 1994; In May, 1994, he received a copy of complainant's petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals.

He, however, did not read the same due to pressure for (sic) work as he is Acting Presiding Judge in the RTC, Branch 25, Echague, Isabela. Besides, it is the private respondent who should answer said petition as he is merely a nominal party; He received on October 21, 1994 the complaint complainant filed with the Ombudsman. Upon reading the same as he had to submit his counter-affidavit, he discovered for the first time the motion for reconsideration complainant filed in the Valencia case but which was inadvertently misplaced; He immediately resolved the motion for reconsideration and sent the Court of Appeals a copy of his resolution; and On November 5, 1994, the Court of Appeals decided said petition for certiorari.

Part of the dispositive portion of its decision reads as follows: The Court commands the respondent court to issue a writ of execution in accordance with the dispositive portion of the decision, as modified by the Court of Appeals, and to spell out in the writ itself to be issued by the court under the signature of the presiding judge the full amount of the money judgment in favor of the plaintiff in Civil Case No. Br. 20-1546 of said court, in accordance with the formula indicated in the text of this decision. Judge Eduarte states that, from hindsight, this trouble could have been avoided had complainant filed a motion for early resolution of said motion for reconsideration - instead of immediately filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals and filing a complaint with the Ombudsman.

He states that the filing of a motion for early resolution is a practice resorted to by some parties. With said motion for early resolution, he could have discovered much earlier that complainant's motion for reconsideration had been misplaced. He could likewise have resolved it much earlier.

All this trouble could have been avoided. On the basis of the foregoing findings, the OCA recommended that: 1.] respondent Judge be fined P5,000.00 for dereliction of duty in Civil Case No. Br. 20-1546 entitled "Victor Valencia v. V.C. Ponce Co., Inc."

and 2.] Sheriff IV Anuedo G. Cajigas, RTC, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite now with the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Bacoor, Cavite, be fined P5,000.00 for gross misconduct in the implementation of a writ of execution in said civil case reasoning thus: IV The writ of execution issued by the Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 20, Cauayan, Isabela is very clear as to what amounts are to be satisfied from the personal and real properties of complainant. x x x V Respondent Sheriff, if he had any common sense at all, would have taken pencil & paper and jotted down the amounts to be satisfied as follows: Unpaid allowance P 65,000.00 Unpaid rentals P103,740.00 Costs-demobilization of equipment P 16,000.00 Costs-equipment P321,150.00 Moral damages P 30,000.00 Exemplary damages P 30,000.00 Attorney's fees & expenses of litigation P 40,000.00