Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ualat V Judge Ramos and Del Callar V Salvador
Ualat V Judge Ramos and Del Callar V Salvador
Article 1652. The sublessee is subsidiarily liable to the lessor for any rent
due from the lessee. However, the sub-lessee shall not be responsible
beyond the amount of rent due from him in accordance with the terms of
the sublease, at the time of the extra-judicial demand by the lessor. (Civil
Code) ~ Ualat should not be liable based on this article.
14.) The claim that Sabio appealed the decision in the RTC is wrong for the
records does not show this and he actually admitted later on that only
Ualat appealed
15.) Complainant Ualat blames resp Judge for denying the appeal but the
denial is correct for it was filed out of time.
16.) The conclusion that resp judge has interest and motive on the land is
not warranted for it was not proven and the judge explains that he has his
own life to live.
17.) Of the 3 errors alleged against him, only 1 was in fact committed that
is holding Ualat jointly and severally liable but this was a mistake of
judgment or law which every judge commits every now and then
18.) With this, exec judge recommends dismissal of the complaint w/ stern
warning
19.) OCA disagrees.
ISSUE: WON complaint should be dismissed NO, the mere fact that resp
lacks prior knowledge of the previous case before the DAR does not
entirely absolve him of admin liability
RATIO: OCA: - Prudence dictate (sic) that the proper thing to do under
the circumstances is to refer first the case to the DAR for certification to
determine the existence of the agricultural tenancy relationship in
accordance with existing agrarian laws. His act of precipitately acting on
the case without coursing the latter to the DAR has put into question his
real motive especially so that his personal interest on the lot is what is
concerned in this case.
- resp has violated PD 316 and PD 1038 which gives jurisdiction to DAR
- (i)t is mandatory for the trial court to refer the case to the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative for a preliminary
determination of the relationship between the contending parties if it is a
case of ejectment or attempt to harass or remove a tenant in agricultural
land primarily devoted to rice and corn. Even without a motion, the trial
court may motu propio order such referral.
SC: - Based on the facts (inc. comp being represented by DAR), it is
obvious that it was an agrarian case
- His failure to refer the case to DAR despite the 2 PDs cannot be justified
- It is a pressing responsibility of judges to keep abreast with the law and
changes therein, as well as with the latest decisions of this Court.
- Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one
-- certainly not judges. ~ When the law is so elementary, it constitutes
gross ignorance of the law
This was his 2nd infraction so he is further admonished and meted the max
penalty with stern warning. Found liable for gross ignorance of law.
was no bad faith in the actuations of respondent; (6) the instant complaint
has become moot and academic
12.) note: the case involves dump trucks smashed into each other and so
it is only fair and just to indemnify the plaintiff
13.) However, OCA agrees that resp judge had already lost jurisdiction over
the case when he denied the motion for execution pending appeal A trial
court can no longer grant a motion for execution after the appeal has been
perfected
ISSUE: WON
RATIO: SC: - In this case, the motion for execution was filed before the
perfection of the appeal.
- the respondent Judge could still take cognizance of the motion for
execution, since the same was seasonably filed. His jurisdiction to act on
the motion continued until the matter was resolved. he fact that he had
already denied such motion did not divest him of that jurisdiction. He
could still entertain, as he did, a timely motion for the reconsideration of
his earlier order to enable him to correct mistakes, if there are any, without
the intervention of a higher court.
- The respondent Judge cannot, therefore, be faulted from taking
cognizance of the motion for the reconsideration which was filed by the
plaintiff twenty days after the receipt of the order denying immediate
execution. Neither irregularity be ascribed to him in not requiring the
movant to put up bond because bond is not an indispensable requisite for
the granting of a writ of execution pending appeal
- The respondent Judges fault lies in his failure to state in his Special
Order good reasons to justify the issuance of the writ of execution. This
is in clear violation of Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which
requires that there be a good reason for issuing a writ of execution pending
appeal and that the good reason be stated in a special order.
- he should be studious of the principles of law and diligent in endeavoring
to ascertain the facts.He should exhibit more than just a cursory
acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules
- Nevertheless, judges may not be held administratively responsible for
every error or mistake in the performance of their duties; otherwise, that
would make their position unbearable. To merit disciplinary sanction, the
error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate, or in bad
faith. In the absence of proof to the contrary, defective or erroneous
decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith
The judge is ADMONISHED for having failed to exercise due care in the
performance of his adjudicatory functions
The case against resp deputy sheriff is dismissed for lack of merit