Accion Publiciana, Which Fell Within The Jurisdiction of The RTC, Not The Metc, Considering
Accion Publiciana, Which Fell Within The Jurisdiction of The RTC, Not The Metc, Considering
Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, a certiorari petition under Rule 65 against an
interlocutory order issued by the court in a summary proceeding is a prohibited pleading.
The RTC should have dismissed outright Sunvars Rule 65 Petition, considering it is a prohibited
pleading.
Sunvar cannot rely on Bayog v. Natino and Go v. CA to justify a certiorari review by the RTC
owing to extraordinary circumstances.
o
Bayog v. Natino
petitioner filed ejectment case against tenant who built house over property.
When respondent (illiterate farmer) received summons from the MCTC to file his
answer within 10 days, he was stricken with TB and only able to consult with a
lawyer after reglementary period.
Court allowed filing of the petition pro hac vice since respondent would suffer
grace injustice and irreparable injury.
Go v. CA
preliminary conference in ejectment suit was held in abeyance by the MTCC until
after case for specific performance involving same parties shall have been
decided by RTC.
No circumstances similar to the situations in Bayog and Go are present to support the relaxation
of the general rule.
Sunvar failed to substantiate its claim of extraordinary circumstances that would constrain the
court to apply the exceptions.
An action for unlawful detainer must be brought up within 1 year from the date of last demand and
the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession.
Unless otherwise stipulated, the action of the lessor shall commence only after a demand to pay
or to comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee; or after a
written notice of that demand is served upon the person found on the premises, and the lessee
fails to comply therewith within 15 days in the case of land or 5 days in the case of buildings.
HERE: it was only on Feb 3, 2009 that petitioners made a final demand upon Sunvar to turn over
the property.
o
The 1-year period should be counted from the final demand made of Feb 3, 2009.
The complaint was filed on July 23, 2009, which was well within the 1-year period.
Public Attorneys Gerlie Uy and Consolacion Bascug of PAO filed an administrative case against
Judge Javellana of the MTC of La Castellana, Negros Occ. for gross ignorance of the law and
procedures, gross incompetence, neglect of duty, conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge,
grave misconduct and others.
They alleged that Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure and cited several examples:
o
Judge Javellana issued a warrant of arrest after the filing of the case despite Sec.
16 of the RRSP.
Judge did not grant the MTD for non-compliance with the Lupon requirement
under Secs. 18 & 19(a) of the RRSP, insisting that said motion was a prohibited
pleading.
Also refused to dismiss outright the complaint even when it was patently without
basis/merit, as the affidavits of the complainant and her witnesses were all
hearsay evidence.
Did not apply the RRSP, instead, conducted a preliminary examination and
preliminary investigation in accordance with the Rules on CrimPro
Set the case for arraignment and pre-trial despite confirming that complainant and
her witness had no personal knowledge of the material facts alleged in their
complaints.
J: MTD is a prohibited pleading under the RRSP and could not dismiss
outright since prosecution has not yet fully presented its evidence.
Many other allegations not pertinent to this case (bond agent, PI, Q&A)
Based on the allegations, Attys. Uy and Bascug prayed that Judge Javellana be removed from the
MTC of La Castellana.
gross ignorance of the law or procedure when he did not apply the RRSP in cases
appropriately covered by said Rule
gross misconduct when he got involved in business relations with the bond agent,
implemented the law inconsistently, and mentioned his accomplishments for publicity.
OCA recommended the judge be suspended for 3 months with a stern warning.
Issue: WON Judge Javellana was guilty of gross ignorance of the law
Held:
B(5) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged
is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding P1000, or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
arising therefrom; Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property thru
criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed
P10,000.00.
People v. Cornelio & People v. Lopez were both for malicious mischief.
o
The crime of malicious mischief is committed by any person who deliberately causes
damage to the property of another thru means not constituting arson.
Art. 328 of the RPC on Special Cases of Malicious Mischief is punishable by prision
correccional (6 months and 1 day to 12 years) in its minimum and medium periods, if the
value of the damage caused exceeds P1k.
All other cases of malicious mischief shall be governed by Art. 329 (Other mischiefs)
punishable by arresto mayor (1 months and 1 day to 6 months) in its medium and max
periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds P1k.
Without any showing that the accused in People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez et al
were charged with the special cases of malicious mischief particularly described in Art.
328 of the RPC, then Art. 329 should be applied.
If the amounts of the alleged damage to property in Cornelio (6k) and Lopez (3k) are
proven, the appropriate penalty for the accused would be arresto mayor in its medium and
max under Art. 329(a) which would be imprisonment for 2 months and 1 day to 6
months.
People v. Cornelio: The issuance of a warrant of arrest in is in violation of Sec. 16 of the RRSP.
Sec. 16. The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear
whenever required.
Judge Javellana never claimed that the accused failed to appear at any hearing.
His justification (wanted) was unacceptable and further indicative of his ignorance of law.
RRSP does not provide for a PI prior to the filing of a criminal case under the Rule.
Based on complaint and affidavits, court may dismiss outright or order counter.
CrimPro requires that PI be conducted only if penalty is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1
day.
People v. Celeste Judge erred in denying the MTD and insisting that the motion was a
prohibited pleading, even though it was never previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa
as required by Secs. 18 & 19(a).
o
Sec. 18 - Cases requiring conciliation under PD 1508, where not shown compliance,
dismissed without prejudice.
Sec. 19 (a) MTD not allowed except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or
failure to comply with Sec. 18.
HERE: case was not referred to the Lupon hence MTD should have been granted.
OCAs recommendation re penalty affirmed. Suspended without pay for 3 months and 1 day +
stern warning.