SPOUSES JESUS G. CRISOLOGO and NANNETTE B . CRISOLOGO, Complainants, vs. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO

CASE DIGEST 

(LEGAL ETHICS: JUDGE)

A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321               October 3, 2012

SPOUSES JESUS G. CRISOLOGO and NANNETTE B  . CRISOLOGO, Complainants,
vs.
JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City, Respondent.

FACTS:

PETITIONERS are plaintiffs in a collection suit raffled to RTC, Branch 15, Davao City. They obtained a favorable judgment which had become final and executory on March 3, 2010. Accordingly, a Writ of Execution dated June 15, 2010 was issued for the satisfaction of said final judgment. Subsequently, a Notice of Sale was issued by Sheriff Robert M. Medialdea, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court on the subject properties. However, the properties involved were already acquired by JEWM prior to the finality of judgment. Aggrieved with the said decision, JEWM filed a complaint for Cancellation of Lien, with Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the Register of Deeds, Davao City, Sheriff Robert Medialdea, JOHN and JANE DOES, and all persons acting under their directions on September 16, 2010. JEWM also filed a complaint of an indirect contempt against Sheriff Medialdea and requiring the Register of Deeds of City of Davao to cancel the auction sale annotated on the TCTs of the subject properties in favor of the Sps. Crisologo. This case was granted by the respondent Judge and ordered the Register of Deeds of City of Davao to cancel any registration or annotation of the subject Sheriff’s Certificates of Sale at the back of TCTs without notifying the Sps. Crisologo.

Service of summons was made only upon the Register of Deeds and Sheriff Robert Medialdea. The notice of hearing for the preliminary injunction was likewise served only upon defendants Register of Deeds and Sheriff Robert Medialdea. Sps. Crisologo, through their counsel, were pleading before Judge Omelio to recognize their entry of appearance as real parties in interest under defendants John and Jane Does in the hearing for preliminary injunction on 22 of September 2010. The case involved the cancellation of several liens carried over in TCT Nos. T-325675 and T-325676, including the liens in favor of Sps. Crisologo. However, Judge Omelio refused to recognize Sps. Crisologo due to lack of legal standing. Judge Omelio bases his refusal to recognize Sps. Crisologo on the ground of lack of the proper Motion to Intervene with Pleading-in-Intervention. Judge Omelio argues that Sps. Crisologo are not indispensable parties because their participation is not indispensable in the determination of whether or not the subsequent liens annotated on the titles of the subject properties may be properly cancelled.

Sps. Crisologo claim that the case should not have proceeded because no summons were made upon the John and Jane Does impleaded in the complaint. Since defendants John and Jane Does are unidentified persons, summons must be made with leave of court and by publication. Judge Omelio, on the other hand, claims that the requirements for service of summons are not applicable where the parties claiming entitlement to summons have already appeared in court during the hearing of the petition.

Sps. Crisologo further claim that JEWM filed a Motion to Render Judgment Granting Plaintiff the Relief Prayed for with Memorandum Attached on 6 December 2010. The motion, however, was heard on 8 December 2010, in violation of the three-day notice requirement.

The Spouses now charged the respondent Judge of gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, gross dereliction of duty and manifest bias for the acts showed by the latter.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of the charges.

HELD:

YES. We find Judge Omelio guilty of gross ignorance of the law for the following acts: (a) refusing to recognize Sps. Crisologo as indispensable party; (b) granting a contentious motion that was in violation of the three-day notice rule; (c) not complying with the rules on summons; and (d) rendering a decision in an indirect contempt case that cancels an annotation of a certificate of sale without notifying the buyer, in violation of the latter’s right to due process.

1. Refusing to recognize Sps. Crisologo as indispensable party

Parties with liens annotated on the certificate of title are entitled to notice in an action for cancellation of their liens.The cancellation of Sps. Crisologo’s liens without notice to them is a violation of their right to due process.

Consistent with Southwestern University v. Laurente, Judge Omelio should be penalized for failing to recognize Sps. Crisologo as indispensable parties and for requiring them to file a motion to intervene, considering that a simple perusal of the certificates of title would show Sps. Crisologo’s adverse rights because their liens are annotated at the back of the titles. For this reason, we find Judge Omelio guilty of gross ignorance of the law for refusing to recognize Sps. Crisologo as indispensable parties in the disputed case.

2. Granting a contentious motion that was in violation of the three-day notice rule:

Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides that notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned, at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers accompanying it; and Section 5 of the same Rule requires the notice to be directed to the parties concerned and to state the time and place for the hearing of the motion. A motion which fails to comply with these requirements is nothing but a useless piece of paper.

It has been oft repeated that judges cannot be held to account or answer criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous judgment or decision rendered by him in good faith, or in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption. However, it has also been held that when the law violated is elementary, a judge is subject to disciplinary action. The principles of due notice and hearing are so basic that respondent’s inability to accord a litigant their right thereto cannot be excused. In this case, we believe that respondent’s actuations reek of malice and bad faith. Thus, we find respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law for violating the three-day notice rule and failing to give herein complainant due notice and the opportunity to be heard on the matter as mandated by Section 12, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

In this case, Judge Omelio granted a contentious motion which contained a defective notice of hearing. The notice of hearing was defective because it was only served two (2) days before the hearing date, instead of the mandatory three-day notice rule. Such motion should have been considered a mere scrap of paper. Judge Omelio should have denied the motion on the ground that it violated the three-day notice rule, without prejudice to JEWM’s re-filing of said motion in accordance with the Rules. Judge Omelio is considered guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting the defective motion. The three-day notice rule on motions is so elementary, that not knowing and observing it, especially in litigious and contentious motions, constitute gross ignorance of the law.

3. Not complying with the rules on summons:

Judge Omelio’s failure to effect proper service of summons upon the defendants John and Jane Does in the complaint constitutes gross ignorance of the law. The rules and procedures on summons are very elementary, that non-observance and lack of knowledge on them constitute gross ignorance of the law, especially for judges who are supposed to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the procedural rules. For failing to cause the proper service of summons upon defendants John and Jane Does and Sps. Crisologo, we find Judge Omelio guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

4. Rendering a decision in an indirect contempt case that cancels an annotation of a certificate of sale without notifying the buyer, in violation of the latter’s right to due process.

Judge Omelio’s decision in the indirect contempt complaint ordered the cancellation in TCT Nos. T-325675 and T-325676 of the annotation of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale in favor of the Sps. Crisologo. Although the case was an indirect contempt complaint, it can still be considered a petition to cancel annotations because of its prayer. As provided in Section 112 of Act No. 496 and Southwestern University v. Laurente, notice is required to be given to parties whose annotations appear on the back of the certificate of title in an action for cancellation of annotations on the certificate of title. In this case, however, no summons or notices were issued to Sps. Crisologo. Only the Register of Deeds and Sheriff Medialdea were impleaded. Judge Omelio should have notified the Sps. Crisologo of the indirect contempt complaint because it included the prayer for cancellation of the annotation of sale on the subject titles, where the latter are buyers. Failure to notify the Sps. Crisologo constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

We find Judge George E. Omelio GUILTY of four counts of the serious charge of gross ignorance of the law for the following acts: (a) refusing to recognize Spouses Jesus G. Crisologo and Nannette B. Crisologo as indispensable parties; (b) granting a contentious motion in violation of the three-day notice rule; (c) non-compliance with the rules on summons; and (d) rendering a decision in an indirect contempt case that cancels an annotation of a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale on two titles without notifying the buyer, in violation of the latter's right to due process. Accordingly, we impose upon Judge George E. Omelio the penalty of fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P 40,000.00), with a warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.