Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

New Code of Judicial Conduct – Qualities of an Ideal Judge

Competence and Diligence

GARAY v. VENADAS
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000, June 16, 2014

FACTS: Spouses Sombilon were the previous owners of a property in Bukidnon. The said property
was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank and was subsequently foreclosed. The one-year
redemption period lapsed but spouses Sombilon failed to redeem the property.

Spouses Sombilon sought the help of their former lawyer, Atty. Garay, and thereafter went to the
bank with him to inquire. The next day, Atty. Garay went to the bank alone and offered to buy the
property. Upon learning this, the spouses offered to buy back the property from PNB. The bank
advised them to make a down payment to formalize their offer, which the spouses failed to do.

The bank decided to approve the purchase offer of Atty. Garay. PNB filed an Ex-Parte Petition for
the Issuance of a Writ of Possession before the RTC. The presiding judge, Judge Venadas, issued an
Order granting the Petition and subsequently issued the Writ. The spouses moved for a
reconsideration, arguing that, as their former counsel, Atty. Garay was barred from purchasing the
property pursuant to Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code.

Judge Venadas issued an order holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ. In its
decision, the court ruled that although ordinarily a writ of possession is issued by the court because
it is a mandatory and ministerial duty, an exception to this rule that if the implementation and
enforcement of the writ would work great injustice.

Aggrieved, Atty Garay and PNB filed a Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order. Atty. Garay also filed an Administrative Complaint against Judge
Venadas, charging him with Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct. Atty. Garay claims that
Judge Venadas should be administratively sanctioned for holding in abeyance the Writ of Possession
he earlier issued and for ignoring the required proof of service under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15
of the Rules of Court as he proceeded to hear the motion despite lack of notice to PNB.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Venadas should be held administratively liable when he blatantly
disregarded the basic rules of procedure and law.

HELD: The Court ruled in the affirmative. One qualities expected from a judge is the exercise of
competence and diligence. A judge owes the public and the court the duty to know the law by heart
and to have the basic rules of procedure at the palm of his hands.

Records show that spouses Sombilon failed to comply with the three-day notice rule and the
required proof of service, thereby rendering the motion fatally defective. Despite this, Judge Venadas
still took cognizance of the motion filed by spouses Sombilon, depriving PNB and Atty. Garay of their
right to due process.

Blatant disregard of basic, elementary, and well-known rules of procedure and law is gross
ignorance of the law, which is classified as a serious charge under Rule 140, Section 8 of the Rules of
Court, punishable by either dismissal, suspension or a fine. Thus, the Court finds Judge Venadas, Sr.
guilty of grave abuse of authority bordering on gross ignorance of the law and is hereby fined the
amount of P20,000.00.

Вам также может понравиться