MODESTO T. UALAT, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE JOSE O. RAMOS, respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-91-588 December 6, 1996
QUIRINO SABIO, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE JOSE O. RAMOS, respondent.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS:
1. Quirino Sabio is an agricultural lessee of land consisting of 4.7 hectares owned by Leonardo Coma. Sabio filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession against Coma and his brother, Raymundo Sabio before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). 06 August 1990
2. The landowner Coma then filed an illegal detainer. 30 August 1990:
3. DARAB ruled in favor of complainant Sabio declaring that the right of the complainant as the tenant-tiller to peaceful possession and cultivation should not be disturbed. 23 July 1990:
4. The respondent Judge rendered a decision in Favor of the landowner ordering the complainants, among others, to vacate the property. November 5, 1990
5. Complainants then contend that Civil Case No. 287 falls within the exclusive authority of the DAR and the respondent judge took the case to advance his personal interest and motive. They alleged that during the pendency of the case, Judge Ramos, thru is brother and son, cultivated the portion of the land subject of the case.
6. Complainant Ualat stated that his residential house was not the subject of lease levied upon the sheriff since he was just a mere caretaker and a sublessee of Quirino Sabio and he could not be held jointly and severally liable for the "civil lease", which judge Ramos held he was part of a relationship of. Sabio only leased 1.4 hectares to Ualat.
7. The case was referred to the Echague Isabela Executive Judge. There was no allegation in the complaint that it was agrarian in nature filed before Judge Ramos. The complaint alleged that Quirino Sabio violated the lease contract by subleasing the portion of the land to Modesto Ualat. That Coma gave the possession and cultivation of the lot to his nephew and Ualat cultivated the land not knowing it was part of the land in question.
It was decided that respondent judge may not be faulted when he said he had jurisdiction over the case since the allegations merely revolved around the violation of "civil lease." which he then decided on its merits.
ISSUE:
W/N respondent judge properly be guilty of gross ignorance of the law for rendering a decision without the consideration/knowledge of previously rendered ruling by DARAB and ignorance of the Civil Code provision.
RULING:
YES. He is guilty. His failure to refer the case to the DAR upon receipt of the answer of complainants, despite the clear mandate of the two agrarian laws and the ruling in Puertollano, can in no wise be justified by respondent Judge. The prudent thing he could have done was to first refer the case to the DAR for certification to determine the existence of agricultural tenancy relationship in accordance with existing agrarian laws. This puts on shade to his real motive since the concern of this case is his personal interest over the lot. It was also stressed in the case of Puertollano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court that it 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.
What is even more embarrassing is his seeming lack of awareness of the Civil Code's:
Art. 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 lessormaking a sub-lessee merely subsidiarily liable for unpaid rentals, to the extent of the rentals due from him under the sub-lease, at the time of the lessor's extrajudicial demand.
Thus, respondent judge is FOUND LIABLE for gross ignorance of the law and is hereby imposed a fine in the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). Respondent is further ADMONISHED that commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Comments
Post a Comment