Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > July 1995 Decisions > Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-93-806 & MTJ-93-863 July 13, 1995 - ERLINO LITIGIO, ET AL. v. CELESTINO V. DICON:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-806. July 13, 1995.]

Spouses ERLINO and SELMA LITIGIO, Complainants, v. Judge CELESTINO V. DICON, Municipal Trial Court, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, Respondents.

[Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-863. July 13, 1995.]

Spouses EUFERMO and JURIE TINDOC, Complainants, v. Judge CELESTINO V. DICON, Municipal Trial Court, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


JUDICIAL ETHICS; COMPLAINTS FOR COLLECTION OF DEBTS AGAINST JUDGES CIVIL IN NATURE NOT ADMINISTRATIVE. — This Court is not the proper forum for the redress of grievance for unfulfilled obligations of the members of the Judiciary. Neither does this Court take original jurisdiction of complaints for collection of debts. Complainants’ course of action is civil, not administrative, in nature and the proper reliefs may be obtained from the regular courts.


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


Two administrative complaints were field against respondent, the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur for willful non-payment of just debt.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

I


A.M. No. MTJ-93-806

Complainants alleged that respondent was a boarder at their house in Pagadian City while the latter was still an Assistant City Prosecutor. On January 15, 1989, respondent obtained a loan of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) from complainant Selma Litigio, and executed a promissory note in her favor (Rollo, p. 8). When the note became due and demandable, respondent promised to pay her after the harvest of his fishpond. When respondent failed to pay anew, she sent a written demand with a grace period of 30 days for respondent to settle his debt (Rollo, p. 9).

In a latter dated September 19, 1991, respondent acknowledged his debt and asked only for additional time within which to pay the note (Rollo, p. 10). However, despite respondent’s repeated promises to pay, his debt remained unpaid; thus, filing of the present complaint.

In his comment, respondent admitted receiving the money but denied the loan transaction. He claimed that the amount was complainant Selma Litigio’s capital investment in his fishpond project, but since the investment was made without the knowledge of her husband, respondent was requested to execute the promissory note to make it appear otherwise. He further alleged that the complaint was filed to besmirch his reputation (Rollo, p. 16).chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

In their reply to the comment, complainants invoked the best evidence rule in the interpretation of the promissory note executed by Respondent. They also made reference to respondent’s series of correspondence, where he acknowledged his debt (Rollo, pp. 10-12).

By resolution, we referred the matter of investigation to Executive Judge Franklin Villegas of the Regional Trial Court, Pagadian City (Rollo, p. 36).

Pending investigation of the matter, a compromise agreement was executed by the parties, where respondent admitted his indebtedness of P50,000.00 to complainants, and offered to pay the said amount with interest of P5,000.00 for the period between May and July, 1994 (Rollo, p. 43). In view thereof, the parties filed a "Joint Motion to Dismiss" dated April 26, 1994 (Rollo, p. 45).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In an Order dated July 11, 1994, the investigating judge recommended that the administrative matter be considered terminated and dismissed (Rollo, p. 53).

A.M. No. MTJ-93-863

Complainant Jurie Tindoc was a subordinate of respondent, who was then Assistant City Prosecutor of Pagadian City. Due to the insistence of respondent, who was in need of money, complainant Jurie Tindoc and her husband, complainant Eufermo Tindoc, obtained a loan of P30,000.00 from Lilia Sardalla on November 11, 1988. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note (Rollo, p. 9). Complainants delivered the proceeds of the loan to Respondent.

Respondent’s wife executed a promissory note with the interest of 5% a month in favor of complainants. Respondent affixed his signature therein to show his marital consent. It was also noted that "The said amount of P30,000.00 was borrowed from MRS. LILIA SARDILLA and the undersigned Creditor, Mr. Eufermo Tindoc, acts as guarantor of the said obligation" (Rollo, p. 9).chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

Complainants alleged that respondent paid only the monthly interest due from December 1988 until September 1990. Thereafter, respondent never made any further payment either on the principal or the interest. On August 22, 1991, complainants sent a demand letter to respondent, who was already a judge of the municipal trial court.

In this letter dated September 19, 1991, respondent assured complainants of his willingness to settle his obligation as soon as he found a buyer of his fishpond, and if they could wait no longer, he expressed willingness for complainants, along with the complainants in A.M. No. MTJ-93-806, to take over the administration of the fishpond (Rollo, p. 11).

When complainants sent anew a demand letter (Rollo, p. 12), respondent reiterated his offer to turnover the operation of the fishpond to them. He informed them that resorting to a civil action against him would be futile because his salary was exempt from execution. He also questioned the rate of 5% interest a month as usurious (Rollo, p. 13).

Due to the failure of respondent to pay his obligation, complainants were compelled to settle their obligation with Lilia Sardalla.

In his comment, respondent denied owing any amount to complainants and claimed that the amount of P30,000.00 he received from them was their investment in the fishpond. He further claimed that he had since paid complainant a total of P70,400.00.

Respondent proposed the following: (1) that complainants take over the management of his fishpond and apply the proceeds thereof to the payment of their investment; (2) that the parties execute a contract of sale of the fishpond (with option to repurchase) in the amount of P150,000.00; or (3) that complainants be directed to accept a monthly installment of P1,000.00 until their investment is fully paid (Rollo, p. 115).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In their reply, complainants denied entering into any joint venture with respondent in the fishpond project. They asserted the clear tenor of the promissory note, where respondent and his wife acknowledged their indebtedness.

In the Resolution dated May 11, 1994, we resolved: (1) to dismiss the complaint; and (2) to direct respondent to settle his obligation with complainants and immediately submit a report thereon (Rollo, p. 134).

In compliance with our resolution, respondent submitted a draft of a compromises agreement, where he proposed to pay the amount of P40,000.00 payable at a monthly rate of P1,000.00 with interest of 12% a year (Rollo, p. 135). In their counter-manifestation, complainants rejected said proposal since it did not conform to the agreed rate of 5% interest a month as stipulated in the promissory note.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

II


Respondent acknowledged his obligations to the complainants in A.M. No. MTJ-93-806 in their compromise agreement (Rollo, p. 43), which together with the "Joint Motion to Dismiss" renders the case moot and academic.

The circumstances in A.M. No. MTJ-93-863 are similar in nature. Unfortunately for complainants herein, no compromise agreement was reached with Respondent.

We commiserate with the predicament of the complainants in A.M. No. MTJ-93-863. However, this court is not the proper forum for the redress of grievance for unfulfilled obligations of the members of the Judiciary. Neither does this Court take original jurisdiction of complaints for collection of debts. Complainants’ course of action is civil, not administrative, in nature and the proper reliefs may be obtained from the regular courts.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Needless to state, this Court does not look with favor at the members of the judiciary who fail to discharge their obligations.

Respondent is reminded that public servants, particularly those employed in the judiciary, should conduct themselves, both in public and in private, with propriety and decorum.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint in A.M. No. MTJ-93-806 for being moot and academic and the complaint in A.M. No. MTJ-93-863 for raising issues which should be the subject of a civil case filed with the appropriate court.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-835 July 3, 1995 - GERARDO C. ALVARADO v. LILY A. LAQUINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 107748 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO SAPURCO

  • G.R. No. 109248 July 3, 1995 - GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110558 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELEDONIO B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112279 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT ALBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114698 July 3, 1995 - WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115304 July 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLAND L. MELOSANTOS

  • G.R. No. 110240 July 4, 1995 - ENJAY INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109036 July 5, 1995 - BARTOLOME F. MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2747 July 6, 1995 - GODOFREDO A. VILLALON v. JIMENEZ B. BUENDIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1008 July 6, 1995 - FLORENTINA BILAG-RIVERA v. CRISANTO FLORA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1026 July 6, 1995 - VICTOR BASCO v. DAMASO GREGORIO

  • G.R. No. 100912 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY A. CRISTOBAL

  • G.R. Nos. 103560 & 103599 July 6, 1995 - GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109166 July 6, 1995 - HERNAN R. LOPEZ, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112973-76 July 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PAGCU, JR.

  • G.R. No. 110321 July 7, 1995 - HILARIO VALLENDE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112629 July 7, 1995 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118644 July 7, 1995 - EPIMACO A. VELASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102930 July 10, 1995 - BONIFACIO MONTILLA PEÑA v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119055 July 10, 1995 - ROY RODILLAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • CBD Case No. 251 July 11, 1995 - ADELINA T. VILLANUEVA v. TERESITA STA. ANA

  • G.R. No. 109370 July 11, 1995 - ROGELIO PARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 July 11, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112046 July 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ONG CO

  • G.R. No. 115245 July 11, 1995 - JUANITO C. PILAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION

  • G.R. No. 116008 July 11, 1995 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79896 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114167 July 12, 1995 - COASTWISE LIGHTERAGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114186 July 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR R. ERNI

  • Adm. Case No. 3283 July 13, 1995 - RODOLFO MILLARE v. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-93-806 & MTJ-93-863 July 13, 1995 - ERLINO LITIGIO, ET AL. v. CELESTINO V. DICON

  • Bar Matter No. 712 July 13, 1995 - IN RE: AL C. ARGOSINO

  • G.R. No. 106769 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO WEDING

  • G.R. No. 109573 July 13, 1995 - SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110580 July 13, 1995 - MANUEL BANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110930 July 13, 1995 - OSCAR LEDESMA AND COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116049 July 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1048 July 14, 1995 - WELLINGTON REYES v. SALVADOR M. GAA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-90-400 July 14, 1995 - SUSIMO MOROÑO v. AURELIO J.V. LOMEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-818 July 14, 1995 - ENRIQUITO CABILAO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-932 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. MANGALINDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-963 July 14, 1995 - MARILOU NAMA MORENO v. JOSE C. BERNABE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1012 July 14, 1995 - ERNESTO G. OÑASA, JR. v. EUSEBIO J. VILLARAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1030 July 14, 1995 - GABRIEL C. ARISTORENAS, ET AL. v. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1075 July 14, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LOLITA A. GRECIA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1086 July 14, 1995 - ALFERO C. BAGANO v. ARTURO A. PANINSORO

  • G.R. Nos. L-66211 & L-70528-35 July 14, 1995 - ARTURO Q. SALIENTES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82220, 82251 & 83059 July 14, 1995 - PABLITO MENESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88384 July 14, 1995 - FEDERATION OF LAND REFORM FARMERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995 - LEON TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91494 July 14, 1995 - CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92167-68 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92660 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO MORICO

  • G.R. No. 96489 July 14, 1995 - NICOLAS G. SINTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97251-52 July 14, 1995 - JOVENCIO MINA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 97435 July 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TEVES

  • G.R. No. 98920 July 14, 1995 - JESUS F. IGNACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101135 July 14, 1995 - TEODORO RANCES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101286 July 14, 1995 - GIL RUBIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101875 July 14, 1995 - CASIANO A. NAVARRO III v. ISRAEL D. DAMASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102297 July 14, 1995 - NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH OF GOD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102993 July 14, 1995 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104639 July 14, 1995 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104682 July 14, 1995 - CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. v. VICENTE S. BATE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105763 July 14, 1995 - LORENDO QUINONES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106279 July 14, 1995 - SULPICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108870 July 14, 1995 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109680 July 14, 1995 - DIEGO RAPANUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111515 July 14, 1995 - JACKSON BUILDING CONDOMINIUM CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112399 July 14, 1995 - AMADO S. BAGATSING v. COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112679 July 14, 1995 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113448 July 14, 1995 - DANILO Q. MILITANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113578 July 14, 1995 - SUPLICIO LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118597 July 14, 1995 - JOKER P. ARROYO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-997 July 17, 1995 - CHRISTOPHER CORDOVA, ET AL. v. RICARDO F. TORNILLA

  • G.R. No. 53877 July 17, 1995 - GREGORIO LABITAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91987 July 17, 1995 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 108891 July 17, 1995 - JRS BUSINESS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109613 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MAHINAY

  • G.R. No. 109809 July 17, 1995 - VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110910 July 17, 1995 - NATIONAL SUGAR TRADING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111797 July 17, 1995 - CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112060 July 17, 1995 - NORBI H. EDDING v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112127 July 17, 1995 - CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112230 July 17, 1995 - NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113917 July 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIA M. CABACANG

  • G.R. No. 118910 July 17, 1995 - KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL L. MORATO

  • G.R. No. 119326 July 17, 1995 - NARCISO CANSINO v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. No. 106539 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORTILLANO NAMAYAN

  • G.R. No. 108789 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABE ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114681 July 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 115115 July 18, 1995 - CONRAD AND COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107439 July 20, 1995 - MICHAEL T. UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-114382 July 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ACOB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115884 July 20, 1995 - CJC TRADING, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117932 July 20, 1995 - AVON DALE GARMENTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106425 & 106431-32 July 21, 1995 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110591 July 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBURCIO E. BACULI

  • G.R. No. 107495 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO Y. UYCOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110106 July 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO R. MONTIERO

  • G.R. No. 111905 July 31, 1995 - ORIENTAL MINDORO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.