ALFREDO NALDA, QUIRICO CABRERA AND PATROCINIO PALANOG, AS COUNSELS FOR TWENTY-EIGHT COMPLAINANTS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE PASTOR P. REYES, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, PASIG, ME…

The Court Administrator, Justice Lorenzo Relova, sub­mitted the
following memorandum on this case with a recommenda­tion for its dismissal:

“Attorneys Alfredo T. Nalda, Quirico Cabrera and Patro­cinio
Palanog, for and in behalf of twenty-eight (28) complainants, filed this
complaint dated July 31, 1978 against Judge Pastor Reyes for (1) ignorance of
the law; (2) abuse of authority/grave abuse of discretion; and (3) violation of
P. D. 946, P. D. 815 and R.A. 3844.

“In this comment and observation dated September 1, 1978,
respondent Judge, among others, claimed that the complaint ‘is not only
malicious but intended to cow, influence or harass the court in the exercise of
its lawful functions.’

“On October 25, 1979, this Office received a petition dated
October 12, 1978 from Atty. Palanog, counsel for the petitioners, praying for the dismissal of the complaint
filed against respondent judge based on the following grounds:

‘1.  That our complaint was based on a misapprehension
of facts and/or inaccurate reports in our possession prevailing at the time of
the filing of our complaint;

‘2.  That as a Judge, he has been honest, upright
and impartial in the course of the hearings of our pending cases before him
without any misgivings or rancour notwithstanding the filing of our complaint
against him before the Supreme Court;

‘3.  That as a Judge, he is hardworking and highly
dedicated to the extent of conducting hearings even on Saturdays just to
expedite the early termination of our cases. As a matter of fact, through his untiring efforts and judicial
statesmanship, he succeeded in settling CAR Case No. 1293-R entitled ‘Gabriel
Remorin, et al. vs. Susana Realty Corp., et al.’ and CAR Case No. 1332 entitled
‘Demetrio Abrenica, et al. vs. Antonio P. Madrigal, et al.,’ wherein the
parties assisted by their counsel have duly executed a com­promise agreement,
which cases gave rise to our complaint. Hence, our complaint against him has already become moot and academic;

‘4.  That with his experience and training as a
judge in the Court of Agrarian Relations continuously for almost twenty-four
(24) years, he has acted and resolved all our pending motions for issuance of
preliminary mandatory injunction with promptitude and dispatch;

‘5.  That in the implementation of the Land Reform
Program of the Government and in the interpretation and application of existing
tenancy laws, he has always been mindful of the plight of the tenants and
upholds the rule of law; and

‘6.  That we have our full faith, trust and
confidence in him thus rendering himself a worthy member of the Bench.’

“Further, Atty. Palanog filed a supplemental petition dated
October 24, 1979 stating –

‘1.  That I am the counsel of all the peti­tioners
in the ‘Petition’ in ‘Re: Administrative Matter No. 1988-CAR;

‘2.  That petitioners Felino Velarde, Timoteo
Basilan and David Yambao, who have not signed the original ‘Petition’ cannot be
presently located and/or have transferred resi­dence;

‘3.  That petitioners Serafin Argana, Simeon de
Guzman, Nicolas Geronimo and Pablo Abrenica, whose names are blotted out by me
in the original ‘Petition’ belong to the group headed by Miguel Argana who have
ear­lier settled their case amicably with defendant Ayala Corporation and a
‘Compromise Agreement’ was duly executed between them and approved by the Court
in a Partial Decision dated October 1, 1979; hence, their complaint has already
become moot and academic;

‘4.  That the remaining plaintiffs in CAR Case No.
1293-R entitled ‘Gabriel Remorin, et al. versus Susana Realty Corporation, et
al.’ and CAR Case No. 1332 entitled ‘Demetrio Abrenica, et al. versus Antonio
P. Madrigal, et al.’ (except a certain Ambrocio Camigla in the former case)
have been finally and com­pletely settled and a ‘Compromise Agreement’ was duly
executed between the parties assisted by their counsel of record on October 16,
1979.

‘FOR THE FOREGOING, it is most res­pectfully prayed that this
supplemental petition as well as the original ‘Petition’ be granted and our
complaint be DISMISSED.’

“In Administrative Case No. 1770, entitled: Ignacio Reydado vs. Carmencita de Castro
where the respondent was charged with deceit or gross misconduct the case was
dis­missed when at the hearing on February 28, 1978 complainant Ignacio Reydado
filed a verified motion for the withdrawal of his complaint alleging that his
complaint was an offshoot of a misunderstanding between the parties which had
‘already been amicably settled.'”

We find the Court Administrator’s recommendation to be well-taken.

WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Antonio, Santos, and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., was abroad.