JOHN SIY LIM, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA, RESPONDENT.

Siy Lim versus Fineza

The Case

This is an administrative case in which John Siy Lim, the winning defendant in a civil suit for a sum of money, charged Judge Antonio J. Fineza, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, with gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct. The charge arose from the judge's refusal to issue a writ of execution in a case that had already become final and executory. The case matters because it fixes two rules every judge and every bar candidate must carry: execution of a final judgment is a matter of right and a ministerial duty, and a judge who deliberately withholds it commits gross misconduct, not a mere error of judgment.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a sworn letter complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator, which investigated and recommended that the respondent be held liable for gross ignorance of the law and fined ten thousand pesos. The Supreme Court then re-docketed the matter as a regular administrative case and referred it to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Investigating Justice found that the judgment had long been final and executory, that the respondent deliberately refused to order its execution, and recommended a fine of thirty thousand pesos for gross ignorance of the law. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court rendered its own ruling on the report.

Facts

John Siy Lim was the defendant in a civil case for a sum of money filed by Tomas See Tuazon, raffled to the sala of Judge Fineza. On December 2, 1991, the judge decided the case in favor of Lim. Both parties moved for reconsideration, and on November 16, 1992, the judge issued an order reversing his own decision. Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on March 31, 1995 reversed the assailed order and reinstated the original decision. Tuazon elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which on October 3, 2000 denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. Tuazon's motion for reconsideration was denied as filed out of time, and an entry of judgment was issued on March 16, 2001. The records were remanded to the trial court for execution.

On June 14, 2001, Lim filed a motion for execution. Tuazon opposed it, claiming that his motion to recall the Supreme Court resolution and the entry of judgment was still pending. The judge even allowed Tuazon to file a memorandum expounding his grounds. On September 10, 2001, the judge denied the motion for execution for being premature. By then, however, the Supreme Court had already ordered, as early as August 13, 2001, that Tuazon's motion to recall be expunged from the records.

In his comment, the respondent claimed that the motion for execution was prematurely filed and that the complainant should have moved for reconsideration of the denial instead of filing a manifestation and comment. The Investigating Justice found that eighty-eight days elapsed from the filing of the motion for execution to its denial, and that the denial rested on trivial and flimsy reasons. She concluded that the respondent had deliberately allowed himself to be used as a tool of the losing party to frustrate the winning party's right.

Issues

• Whether or not a judge may refuse to issue a writ of execution upon a judgment that has already become final and executory on the ground that a motion to recall the entry of judgment is still pending.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable, and for what offense, for his refusal to order the execution of the final judgment.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 1. Execution upon judgment or final orders. — Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.

This is the provision the respondent violated, because it makes execution a matter of right once the period to appeal has lapsed without an appeal being perfected.

Section 11 of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, provides in part:

Section 11. Sanctions. — A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations; Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave benefits; 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than 20,000 pesos but not exceeding 40,000 pesos.

This provision supplies the range of penalties for a serious charge, within which the fine imposed in this case falls.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent's refusal was indefensible. The judgment had become final and executory, an entry of judgment had been issued, and nothing remained to be done except to execute it. A judge cannot amend a final decision, and a pending motion to recall the entry of judgment cannot stay a final and executory judgment. Execution was therefore a matter of right on motion, and the issuance of the writ was a ministerial duty. The Court quoted the rule it applied:

Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that the respondent should be sanctioned, but disagreed with the Investigating Justice's label. The rule that a final judgment must be executed is so elementary that the respondent could not plausibly have been ignorant of it. He knew very well that the judgment was final and executory and that he should grant the motion, yet he deliberately refused. The Court held that he deliberately allowed himself to be used as a tool of the losing party to frustrate the winning party's right, an actuation suggestive of bad faith and manifest delay in the administration of justice. He was therefore guilty of gross misconduct, which the Court defined as the transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence. The Court reminded judges that when the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it, and that when a judge himself becomes a transgressor of the law he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute and impairs public confidence in the judiciary. The recommended fine of thirty thousand pesos was affirmed as in order under the rule on sanctions.

Doctrine

First, once a judgment becomes final and executory, execution issues as a matter of right on motion, and it is the ministerial duty of the court to order it. A judge cannot amend a final decision, and no pending motion to recall the entry of judgment can stay execution.

Second, a judge who deliberately refuses to order the execution of a final judgment, knowing that it is his duty to do so, is guilty of gross misconduct, not merely gross ignorance of the law. Gross misconduct is the transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence.

Third, gross misconduct is a serious administrative offense under the Revised Rules of Court, punishable by dismissal, suspension, or a fine of more than twenty thousand pesos but not exceeding forty thousand pesos.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Antonio J. Fineza guilty of gross misconduct and fined him thirty thousand pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: execution of a final and executory judgment is a matter of right and a ministerial duty, and a judge who deliberately withholds it commits gross misconduct. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct, and to test the rule that a final judgment can no longer be amended or stayed by a pending motion.