PAULITO AND MA. TERESA GOMEZ, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE ESTANISLAO S. BELAN, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BIñAN, LAGUNA AND ATTY. ARLINDO S. ANGELES, RESPONDENTS.

Gomez versus Belan

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed with the Supreme Court by the spouses Paulito and Ma. Teresa Gomez against Judge Estanislao Belan of the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, and against Atty. Arlindo Angeles, counsel for the opposing parties in an ejectment case. The Gomezes charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law and the lawyer with deliberately misleading the court, arising from an ex parte order allowing the plaintiffs in the ejectment case to enter the leased premises and break the padlock on its gate. The case matters because it teaches two lessons at once: the requirements of procedural due process before a court acts on a motion, and the rule that administrative complaints are not a substitute for the judicial remedies provided by law.

Procedural History

The Gomezes instituted the administrative proceedings against both respondents, and the Supreme Court required each of them to file a comment, which they did in due course. The case was then referred to and heard by Judge Pablo Francisco of the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, sitting as investigating judge, who submitted his report in March 1998. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an original administrative action, and the Court resolved it on the basis of the investigating judge's report and recommendation.

Facts

An ejectment case was pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, presided over by Judge Belan. The plaintiffs were the Arandia spouses, and the defendants were the Gomez spouses. Atty. Angeles was counsel for the Arandias. In October 1996, Atty. Angeles filed a motion to enter premises and render judgment, alleging that the Gomezes had moved out of the litigated premises without informing the plaintiffs, that the premises had been abandoned and left open except for the locked gate, and that the Gomezes, when located at their new residence, refused to surrender the keys.

Acting on the motion, Judge Belan issued an order ex parte granting the Arandias permission to cause the breaking of the padlock at the gate of the premises, and declaring the case submitted for decision. Pursuant to that order, the sheriff, accompanied by a police officer, Mrs. Erlinda Arandia, and Atty. Angeles, proceeded to the house. They confirmed that the Gomezes had indeed abandoned the premises, padlocking the front gate but leaving the front door open, with only a few personal belongings found at the receiving room and outside the house. The house was then locked up, including the gates.

The Gomezes then filed the administrative complaint, alleging that Judge Belan did not give them the benefit of a hearing before acting on the motion and virtually directed execution against them while the ejectment case was still pending decision, and that Atty. Angeles had not given them notice of his motion and had fed the judge wrong information.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Belan is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law in issuing the order ex parte without giving the Gomezes a chance to be heard.
• Whether or not Atty. Angeles is administratively liable for deliberately misleading the court in his motion.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it applies the constitutional and procedural requirement of due process, which it describes as the duty of the judge to set a motion for hearing and to see to it that the side of the adverse party is heard.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the investigating judge that the evidence indubitably established that the Gomezes had in fact abandoned the premises. With that finding, their contention that the order pre-empted the decision in the ejectment case had no leg to stand on; on the contrary, it was their abandonment that rendered moot and academic the issue of possession. The Court acknowledged that the order might have been infirm for failure to observe procedural due process, since the new address of the Gomezes was known to Atty. Angeles and made known to Judge Belan in the motion itself, and it devolved upon the judge to set the motion for hearing. But the Court held that the Gomezes should bear to a large extent the blame for the failure to notify them, because they had no address on record and had failed to inform the court that they had moved out, and the obligation to inform the court of their new address devolved not upon Atty. Angeles but upon themselves. The Court also noted that in filing the complaint, the Gomezes came to court with unclean hands.

On the second issue, the Court found no basis to hold Atty. Angeles liable, as the evidence showed that the Gomezes had abandoned the premises and that the acts taken were calculated to protect the property from intrusion by others, a valid act of ownership. The Court reminded the parties that administrative proceedings against judges are not an acceptable substitute for the judicial remedies prescribed by law to correct supposed errors of the latter acting within the scope of their jurisdiction and functions, or even upon the claim that said judges have acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine

A judge should set a motion for hearing and see to it that the side of the adverse party is heard, to satisfy the requirements of due process; but a party who fails to inform the court of a new address bears a large share of the blame for the failure of notice. Administrative complaints against judges are not an acceptable substitute for the judicial remedies prescribed by law to correct supposed errors, even on the claim of lack of or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. A party who comes to court with unclean hands is not entitled to relief.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the complaint against Judge Belan and Atty. Angeles for lack of merit, with the admonition that in future they be more observant of due process in court proceedings.

Remember This

Memorize this line: administrative proceedings against judges are not an acceptable substitute for the judicial remedies prescribed by law. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between judicial error and administrative liability, and the duty of a party to keep the court informed of its address.