The established policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not a substitute for these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. The extraordinary remedies are the special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, or a petition for change of venue, as the case may be. The ordinary remedies include a motion for reconsideration, or after rendition of a judgment or final order, a motion for new trial, and, of course, appeal. Under the facts, it is not fair to ascribe inaction or intent to delay to Judge Abesamis as regards Flores’s motions for execution.Įven assuming that Judge Abesamis was refraining from acting on Flores’s motion, out of bias or hostility, there were obvious judicial remedies readily available to him to obtain relief. The trouble is, Flores’s adversary, Ligon, lost no time in challenging Judge Abesamis’s order of execution of April 20, 1988, and other orders for restoration of possession of the cockpit to Flores, in a series of actions in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, in the course of which temporary restraining orders were issued against Abesamis. Flores sought to hold Judge Abesamis administratively and criminally responsible for unduly delaying action on several motions filed by him to regain possession of the cockpit. He accused Judge Abesamis of transgressing Section (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: "for allege bias and prejudice in granting a party’s motion which caused undue injury to complainant." cralaw virtua1aw libraryĪtty. The Court of Appeals dismissed this certiorari motion and also denied reconsideration thereof.įlores also filed an administrative proceeding against Judge Regino in relation to his order dated April 16, 1990.įlores also filed in the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint against Judge Abesamis, with respect to his orders of February 16, June 6, and December 10, 1990. Flores’s motion for reconsideration was denied by order dated Jof Judge Abesamis who had by then returned to duty.įlores challenged these three orders - of Febru(of Abesamis), of Ap(of Regino) and of J(of Abesamis) - in a certiorari suit filed with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. In his order of April 16, 1990, Judge Regino ruled that Ligon’s lawful acquisition of title of the cockpit and Flores’s continuing failure to pay his debt of P1.8 million to the former were supervening events warranting Ligon’s retention of the cockpit and precluding its restoration to Flores. That order was upheld by Judge Teodoro Regino, Abesamis’s pair judge, who acted on a subsequent motion of Flores to get back the cockpit while Abesamis was on leave. Judge Abesamis sustained Ligon’s contention, in an order dated February 16, 1990. Ligon pointed out that since he had become the owner of the cockpit, his right of possession must be deemed superior to that of Flores, lessee of the former owner. RTJ-89-348) against Judge Abesamis, accusing him of partiality, evident bad faith, and gross negligence, as well as of serious misconduct, inefficiency and ignorance of the law, in deliberately delaying action on his motions to obtain possession of the cockpit. Q-45825 itself.Īlthough aware of these circumstances, Flores filed criminal and administrative cases (A.M. 84644, not lifted until October 1989, and 3) the pendency in Civil Case No. 14588, which was not lifted until Novem2) a temporary restraining order issued on Decemby the Second Division of the Supreme Court in G.R. But the enforcement of the alias writ of execution was delayed by: 1) a temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals on Octoin CA-G.R. 10259, he ordered the issuance of an alias writ of execution to revert possession of the cockpit to Flores. When Judge Abesamis received the notice of the judgment in the consolidated cases of CA-G.R. Flores was unable to regain possession of the cockpit because of Ligon’s actions in the Court of Appeals. His motion was granted by Judge Abesamis. In light of the favorable decision of the Court of Appeals, Flores asked the trial court to restore possession of the cockpit to him. To nullify the writ of execution, Flores filed a certiorari action in the Court of Appeals, which ruled that Flores had not infringed the compromise judgment. Q-45825, a judgment based on compromise was rendered, providing for the payment of the indebtedness of Flores to the plaintiff, Rolando Ligon, in installment.įlores breached the compromise judgment and the trial court ordered the execution thereof a writ of execution issued.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |