CORAZON R. TANJUATCO, COMPLAINANT,VS. JUDGE IRENEO L. GAKO, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 5, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

Tanjuatco versus Gako

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Corazon Tanjuatco against Judge Ireneo Gako, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Cebu City, charging him with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, gross partiality, and gross ignorance of the law in connection with a contract rescission case decided in his sala. The case matters because it draws the line between an erroneous ruling, which is not a ground for administrative liability, and conduct that betrays the judicial duty of impartiality — and it teaches how the Court calibrates the penalty when the respondent judge has already retired and has a record of prior infractions.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a sworn complaint directly with the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, recommendation, and report. After due hearings, the Investigating Justice recommended that the respondent be adjudged guilty of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and grave misconduct, and be meted the penalty of dismissal. The case was then resolved by the Supreme Court as a regular administrative matter, with the Court declining to fully adopt the investigator's recommendation.

Facts

Vicente del Rosario and his brother Pantaleon co-owned eight parcels of land in Cebu City. In August 1985 they sold the property to the City of Cebu for its abattoir project, with the purchase price to remain in escrow with the Philippine National Bank until the titles were delivered. After the 1986 Edsa event, the new city leadership stopped the abattoir construction. Vicente died in May 1987, leaving his wife and eight children, among them the complainant Corazon, Pantaleon, and Carlos.

The heirs filed a petition for partition of the estate, which eventually landed in Branch 5, then presided by the respondent judge. The respondent held preliminary conferences among the heirs, and later inhibited himself upon their motion. Meanwhile, Vicente B. del Rosario, represented by his father Pantaleon, sued the City of Cebu for rescission of the contract. That case was raffled to the respondent's branch. The original verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by Pantaleon; it was later replaced by one executed by Vicente B. upon motion for leave to amend, which recited that the court had told counsel to make the amendment and to allege that the escrow amount should be paid to Vicente B. by way of rentals.

The respondent rescinded the contract and awarded the whole purchase price as rentals to Vicente B. Carlos then moved to intervene, the city filed a notice of appeal, and Vicente B. moved for execution pending appeal, which the court granted upon a bond. The complainant then filed this administrative complaint, alleging that the respondent lawyered for Pantaleon, admitted the amended complaint despite unpaid filing fees, awarded the escrow to Vicente B. despite knowing that half the property belonged to the estate under partition, and allowed execution pending appeal while Carlos's motion to intervene remained unresolved. The respondent answered that his decision was based on law and evidence, that he was unaware of the overlap with the partition case, and that it is the court's duty to suggest proper procedures to litigants.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment for suggesting the amendment of the complaint and the claim for rentals.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of grave misconduct for failing to implead the complainant and the other heirs as indispensable parties.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of grave misconduct for denying the motion to intervene.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable, and if so, for what offense and what penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of the Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Courts in the Conduct of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures provides:

5. If all efforts to settle fail, the trial judge shall: Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference as part of the pre-trial proceedings and confirm markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents; Inquire if there are cases arising out of the same facts pending before other courts and order its consolidation if warranted; Inquire if the pleadings are in order. If not, order the amendments if necessary; Inquire if interlocutory issues are involved and resolve the same; Consider the adding or dropping of parties.

This bears on the case because the respondent invoked the judge's duty at pre-trial to order amendments and consider the adding or dropping of parties.

Section 2 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides:

the motion to intervene may be filed at anytime before rendition of judgment by the trial court.

This bears on the case because the motion to intervene was filed after judgment, making its denial proper.

Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, on less serious charges, provides:

B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

This bears on the case because it supplies the penalty for simple misconduct, subject to the ceiling once the judge has retired.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court was not persuaded that the respondent knowingly rendered an unjust judgment. The suggestion to amend could be viewed as an attempt to comply with the pre-trial guidelines, which direct the judge to inquire if the pleadings are in order and to order amendments if necessary. The verification was defective because it was executed by the attorney-in-fact, and correction prevented future complications. Verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requisite, so the complaint need not have been dismissed. The Court also noted that no clear benefit redounded to Vicente B., since the verification could have been made by the party, his lawyer, or his representative.

On the second issue, the Court held that while the pre-trial guidelines oblige the judge to add or drop parties if proper, the inclusion of parties-plaintiffs is different. The court cannot simply order the impleadment of additional plaintiffs, who must consent to their inclusion; otherwise the addition would be useless and irregular. The respondent was correct in not simply adding the complainant and Carlos as co-plaintiffs, since the court had yet to acquire jurisdiction over their persons.

On the third issue, the Court held that intervention is not a matter of right but of sound discretion, and must be filed before rendition of judgment. The respondent acted within the rules when he denied Carlos's motion, filed after the decision was rendered. The Court added that a co-owner may bring an action in that capacity without joining all the other co-owners, because the suit is deemed instituted for the benefit of all; a favorable decision benefits them, while an adverse one cannot prejudice their rights. Thus no prejudice was suffered.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law can be infallible, and to hold judges liable for every erroneous ruling would be harassment. But the respondent did not conduct himself with the exacting impartiality required by the Code of Judicial Conduct, for he suggested that the amendment include a claim for rentals. This was improper and constituted simple misconduct. Since he had already retired, only a maximum fine of 20,000 pesos could be imposed under the rule, but given his prior infractions and repeated warnings, a fine of 100,000 pesos was appropriate.

Doctrine

A judge may not be administratively held liable for every erroneous ruling; liability for serious offenses requires reliable evidence that the judicial acts were ill-motivated, corrupt, or inspired by persistent disregard of well-known rules. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requisite, and a defective verification does not warrant outright dismissal. The court cannot motu proprio implead additional plaintiffs without their consent, since jurisdiction over their persons has not been acquired. Intervention is discretionary and must be filed before rendition of judgment. A co-owner may sue for the benefit of all co-owners without joining them, and an adverse decision cannot prejudice the rights of the unjoined co-owners. A judge who suggests relief favorable to one party violates the duty of impartiality and commits simple misconduct, punishable under Rule 140.

Disposition

The Court adjudged former Judge Ireneo Gako, Jr. guilty of simple misconduct and fined him 100,000 pesos, to be deducted from his retirement benefits, and ordered the processing of his retirement papers.

Remember This

Memorize the line: not every erroneous ruling makes a judge administratively liable, but suggesting relief favorable to one party is simple misconduct. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between judicial error and partiality, and the rule on intervention and joinder of co-owners.