A.M. No. RTJ-15-2422 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4129-RTJ],
July 20, 2015
FLOR GILBUENA RIVERA, Complainant, v. HON.
LEANDRO C. CATALO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 256,
MUNTINLUPA CITY, Respondent.
Complainant
filed her Amended Petition before the RTC, praying for the issuance of new
owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 3460,
docketed as LRC Case No. 12-005. The case was raffled to the branch presided by
Judge Catalo.
The amended petition alleged that complainant was one of the heirs of Juan Gilbuena (Gilbuena); that TCT No. 3460 was registered under the name of Gilbuena; and that the owner's duplicate copy of the said title had remained missing despite their diligent efforts to locate the same. When the case was called for hearing, no oppositor appeared before the RTC. Upon motion, complainant was allowed to present evidence exparte.
Judge Catalo rendered his decision granting the petition for issuance of new owner's duplicate copy on the basis of the evidence presented by complainant, particularly the affidavit of loss and the certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City (RD).
The amended petition alleged that complainant was one of the heirs of Juan Gilbuena (Gilbuena); that TCT No. 3460 was registered under the name of Gilbuena; and that the owner's duplicate copy of the said title had remained missing despite their diligent efforts to locate the same. When the case was called for hearing, no oppositor appeared before the RTC. Upon motion, complainant was allowed to present evidence exparte.
Judge Catalo rendered his decision granting the petition for issuance of new owner's duplicate copy on the basis of the evidence presented by complainant, particularly the affidavit of loss and the certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City (RD).
The RTC
decision became final and executory and the Certificate of Finality was
issued.
RD Acting
Records Officer Vivian V. Dacanay (Dacanay), formally filed her
Manifestation before the RTC stating, among others, that upon examination
of the documents submitted to their office, it appeared that TCT No. 3460 had
long been cancelled as early as April 2, 1924; that on August 16, 2012, the RD
issued a letter recalling the approval of the annotation of the Affidavit of
Loss on TCT No. 3460 after it was discovered that the said title was already
cancelled and, therefore, could no longer be the subject of any transaction;
that the discovery of the cancellation of the title was sometime in August
2012, when their office found out that several titles had already
originated from said title; that the truth was that the title was not lost,
rather, it was cancelled by virtue of valid transactions and conveyance as
early as April 2, 1924; and that the basis of the petition for issuance of new
owner's duplicate, which was an affidavit of loss, was totally false, untrue
and fabricated.
Acting thereon,
Respondent Judge issued an order requiring the complainant and all the parties
concerned to attend a hearing on November 7, 2012 on the Manifestation filed by
Dacanay. Despite being given 15 days to give his side, the complainant did not
appear in court.
Aggrieved, complainant filed the subject administrative complaint before the Court alleging that Judge Catalo committed gross misconduct for recalling a final and executory judgment.
The Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that Judge Catalo was administratively
liable, not for gross misconduct, but for gross ignorance of the law.
When the May 18, 2012 decision became final and executory on July 3, 2012, it became immutable and unalterable. Thus, Judge Catalo inexcusably and wrongfully ignored such basic principle when he decided to motu proprio recall his own final decision. The OCA also found that he overlooked the basic principle that a final judgment, order or resolution could only be annulled under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
When the May 18, 2012 decision became final and executory on July 3, 2012, it became immutable and unalterable. Thus, Judge Catalo inexcusably and wrongfully ignored such basic principle when he decided to motu proprio recall his own final decision. The OCA also found that he overlooked the basic principle that a final judgment, order or resolution could only be annulled under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
The OCA, thus, concluded that for
exhibiting gross ignorance of the law, Judge Catalo violated Rule 1.01 and Rule
3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct as he failed to conform to the high
standards of competence required of judges. It was the recommendation of the
OCA that Judge Catalo be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and be
fined in the amount of P21,000.00.
Issue: Whether or not a judge can retract
his decision that has acquired finality?
Held:
Gross ignorance of the law by a
judge presupposes an appalling lack of familiarity with simple rules of law or
procedures and well-established jurisprudence that tends to erode the public
trust in the competence and fairness of the court which he personifies. In
this case, the Court is not at all convinced that Judge Catalo committed gross
ignorance of the law.
Indeed, under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect. Like any other rule, however, there are recognized exceptions to this general rule such as (1) the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, (2) void judgments, and (3) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
Under the second exception, a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It neither is a source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void. It may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.
In the case of Abalos v. Philex Mining Corporation, the Court reiterated the third exception, concerning unjust and inequitable judgments.
Indeed, under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect. Like any other rule, however, there are recognized exceptions to this general rule such as (1) the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, (2) void judgments, and (3) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
Under the second exception, a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It neither is a source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void. It may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.
In the case of Abalos v. Philex Mining Corporation, the Court reiterated the third exception, concerning unjust and inequitable judgments.
Under the law, the court may modify
or alter a judgment even after the same has become executory whenever
circumstances transpire rendering its execution unjust and inequitable, as
where certain facts and circumstances justifying or requiring such modification
or alteration transpired after the judgment has become final and executory.
If there are
facts and circumstances that would render a judgment void or unjust after its
finality, and render its execution a complete nullity, such judgment cannot
exude immutability.
In this case, Judge Catalo correctly recalled the judgment because the second and third exceptions on the doctrine of finality of judgments were squarely applicable. After the finality of the RTC decision on July 3, 2012, it was discovered that TCT No. 3460 had been cancelled as early as April 2, 1924. Complainant, when later asked to present his stand, failed to contradict the allegation that he falsified his affidavit of loss. Clearly, these subsequent events raised a red flag and placed the Respondent Judge on his toes. Judge Catalo realized an execution of such judgment would definitely be unjust and inequitable as it would be sanctioning fraud and irregularity. It would judicially permit the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of a title which was no longer in existence.
In this case, Judge Catalo correctly recalled the judgment because the second and third exceptions on the doctrine of finality of judgments were squarely applicable. After the finality of the RTC decision on July 3, 2012, it was discovered that TCT No. 3460 had been cancelled as early as April 2, 1924. Complainant, when later asked to present his stand, failed to contradict the allegation that he falsified his affidavit of loss. Clearly, these subsequent events raised a red flag and placed the Respondent Judge on his toes. Judge Catalo realized an execution of such judgment would definitely be unjust and inequitable as it would be sanctioning fraud and irregularity. It would judicially permit the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of a title which was no longer in existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment