SECOND DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 18-4834-P. August 31, 2022.]
ALVIN N. CAPUYAN, complainant, vs.TESSIE LYNNE M. DULLIPAS, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MANKAYAN, BENGUET, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 31, 2022which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 18-4834-P (Alvin N. Capuyan, complainant v. Tessie Lynne M. Dullipas, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Mankayan, Benguet, respondent). — For the Court's resolution is a Verified Complaint-Affidavit (Complaint) 1 dated April 17, 2018 filed by complainant Alvin N. Capuyan (complainant) against respondent Tessie Lynne M. Dullipas (respondent), Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court of Mankayan, Benguet (MTC), accusing the latter of Gross Ignorance of the Law and/or Procedure.
The Facts
In his Complaint, complainant alleged that he was one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 218 filed before the MTC. In a Resolution 2 dated March 15, 2018 (MTC Resolution), the MTC, acting on the compromise agreement of the parties-litigants in Civil Case No. 218, ordered therein defendants to, inter alia: (a) immediately vacate the property subject of litigation; (b) dismantle any structures put up by them thereon; and (c) peaceably surrender its possession thereof to therein plaintiffs. Notably, the MTC Resolution likewise directed the sheriff to implement the foregoing, and for this purpose, issue a writ of execution. According to complainant, he and his co-defendants moved for reconsideration 3 of said MTC Resolution on the purported ground that 'the same was merely based on a one-sided appreciation and interpretation of the [MTC] in reference with the Report submitted by the Commissioned Geodetic Engineers who conducted an actual survey over the subject matter lot in this case as well as the other references, as agreed upon by the parties.' 4 During the pendency of such motion, respondent caused the issuance of a writ of execution. According to complainant, respondent violated basic procedural law in issuing said writ, essentially contending that such issuance should only occur after the MTC Resolution lapses into finality, i.e., after the MTC resolves the pending motion, no appeal has been perfected or the reglementary period therefor has lapsed, and a Certificate of Finality has been issued. 5 ETHIDa
In her Comment 6 dated August 28, 2018, respondent denied the accusation against her, essentially maintaining that the issuance of the writ of execution was pursuant to the MTC Resolution. As such, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against her for lack of merit. 7
Meanwhile, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a Memorandum 8 dated January 20, 2020 directing respondent to show cause as to why she should not be administratively dealt with for her alleged failure to submit the required comment despite two (2) directives to do so. 9 This prompted respondent to submit an Affidavit 10 dated September 24, 2020 stating that: (a) she had received and read the Complaint against her on August 24, 2018; (b) she had already submitted/sent her comment via e-mail to [email protected] as early as September 3, 2018; (c) on September 5, 2018, she instructed her son to mail to the OCA via private courier physical copies of her comment; (d) upon receiving the OCA's first tracer dated December 6, 2018, she had a soft copy of her Comment saved to a CD which she sent to the OCA via private courier; (e) when she received the show cause order against her, she re-sent her Comment with its attachments via e-mail to [email protected] on September 23, 2020; and (f) in the morning of September 24, 2020, she confronted her son regarding the sending of the physical copies of her Comment to the OCA, to which her son replied that he misplaced it. 11
The JIB Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation 12 dated May 20, 2021, the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) Office of the Executive Director (OED) recommended the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of merit. In so recommending, the JIB-OED pointed out that since Civil Case No. 218 was decided/resolved based on a compromise agreement, then the MTC Resolution is immediately executory. As such, respondent did not commit any error in issuing the writ of execution. In this regard, the JIB-OED opined that even assuming arguendo that there were indeed irregularities insofar as the issuance of the said writ is concerned, then complainant is not left without any judicial recourse; hence, he should have first availed of the same before filing the instant administrative complaint. Finally, the JIB-OED found respondent's explanation on the alleged delay of the submission of her Comment to be well-taken, thereby concluding that she did not disregard the OCA's directives to timely submit the same. 13
Thereafter, the JIB Proper issued a Report 14 dated April 20, 2022 essentially adopting the findings and recommendations of the JIB-OED.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue before the Court is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of. cSEDTC
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the JIB.
It is well to reiterate that '[f]or liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the [Judiciary personnel concerned] in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but, most importantly, it must also be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other like motive.' 15 Here, the JIB correctly pointed out that Civil Case No. 218 was decided/resolved based on therein parties-litigants' compromise agreement. Pertinent portions of the MTC Resolution read:
We now come to the pertinent provision of the approved proposals (proposals) for the conduct of joint relocation survey. As correctly pointed out by the plaintiffs, such agreement is a compromise agreement meant to abbreviate the proceedings and eventually putting an end to it. This is sanction[ed] by law especially when such agreement is not contrary to law, public order or public policy. The Court, after the defendants interposed no objection to the proposals, stamped its approval thereon. As then contained in the proposals, the Court quotes the following:
xxx xxx xxx
"6. That the result of the relocation survey must be respected by the parties to be the true and correct location of their respective lands which renders the same as their compromise agreement rendering the result thereof binding and executory between them to be used as the basis of the resolution of the instant case by the Honorable Court;
xxx xxx xxx
9. That only the resolution of the Honorable Court insofar as the award of damages may be the subject of appeal, the result of the joint relocation survey is immediately enforceable by way of execution."
Taking into consideration the foregoing, plaintiff's pending Motion for Execution may now be given due course. 16
In this regard, case law definitively instructs that '[a] judgment on compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits. It has the effect of res judicata, and is immediately final and executory unless set aside because of falsity or vices of consent. The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality, even if the purpose of the modification is to correct errors of fact or law.' 17 In this regard, case law also instructs that the grounds for setting aside a judicial compromise are mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity of documents that vitiated the compromise agreement. 18 SDAaTC
Here, and without pre-empting the MTC's resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by complainant and his co-defendants in Civil Case No. 218, it appears that such motion was not rooted from any of the aforementioned grounds which would vitiate the parties-litigants' consent to the compromise agreement. Rather, it merely contends that 'the [compromise judgment] was merely based on a one-sided appreciation and interpretation of the [MTC] in reference with the Report submitted by the Commissioned Geodetic Engineers who conducted an actual survey over the subject matter lot in this case as well as the other references, as agreed upon by the parties.' 19 In this light, the Court holds that respondent's issuance of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 218 was in accordance with prevailing laws, rules, and jurisprudence; hence, cannot amount to Gross Ignorance of the Law and/or Procedure.
Furthermore, the JIB also correctly pointed out that assuming arguendo that there were indeed irregularities insofar as the issuance of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 218 is concerned, complainant's proper recourse should have been to resort to the judicial remedies available to him instead of filing the instant administrative complaint. It is settled that 'resort to and exhaustion of judicial remedies and a final ruling on the matter are prerequisites for the taking of appropriate measures against the [Judiciary personnel] concerned, whether of criminal, civil or administrative nature.' 20 AaCTcI
FOR THESE REASONS, the instant Complaint is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2.Id. at 7-10. Penned by Presiding Judge Jonathan Chavez Segundo.
3.Id. at 11-22.
4.Id. at 12.
5.Id. See also id. at 39-40, 70-71, and 82-83.
6.Id. at 51.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 39-41. Signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (now a Member of the Court) and Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva (now Court Administrator).
9.Id.
10.Id. at 47-48.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 70-75. Signed by JIB Acting Executive Director James D.V. Navarrete and JIB Acting SC Senior Chief Staff Officer Eduardo C. Tolentino.
13.Id. at 73-74.
14.Id. at 81-88. Penned by JIB Second Regular Member Retired Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada, with JIB Chairperson Retired Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., JIB Vice-Chairperson Retired Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, and JIB First Regular Member Retired Justice Sesinando E. Villon, concurring.
15. See Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Hon. Mupas, A.M. No. RTJ-20-2593, November 10, 2020, citing Department of Justice v. Judge Mislang, 791 Phil. 219, 228 (2016).
16. See rollo, pp. 73 and 85.
17.Gadrinab v. Salamanca, 736 Phil. 279, 283 (2014).
18.Id. at 291, citing Spouses Romero v. Tan, 468 Phil. 224, 240 (2004).
19.Rollo, p. 12.
20. See Re: Verified Complaint of AMA Land, Inc. against Hon. Danton Q. Bueser, Hon. Sesinando E. Villon and Hon. Ricardo R. Rosario, Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, 701 Phil. 462, 468 (2013); citation omitted.