A.M. NO. RTJ-04-1886 - ALFREDO G. BOISER, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, HIMAMAYLAN CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows: 1) For the defendant to vacate subject land known as Lot No. 2023 situated at Brgy. Candumarao, Hinigaran, Negros Occiental, consisting of 5.5536 hectares leased by the plaintiff from Mary Nonasco and Ofelia Donado, heirs of the registered owners, the late spouses Narciso Gayares and Paz Nava, and to peacefully turn over possession thereof to the plaintiff; 2) For the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P200,000.00 by way of actual damages; 3) For defendant to pay plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 plus P1,000.00 as appearance fee and to pay the cost. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court is hereby ordered dismissed. The case was appealed to the RTC of Negros Occidental, Branch 55. On 15 October 2003, defendant-appellant Salvador Julleza filed a motion to release bond on the ground that the MTC of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, in its decision dated 11 July 2003, had already resolved the writ of preliminary injunction without mentioning the applicant's liability. On 16 October 2003, respondent judge granted the motion. [3] Complainant alleged that the issuance by respondent judge of the Order dated 16 October 2003 is indicative of his ignorance of the law considering that the motion did not state that he was furnished a copy of the motion thereby depriving him of his right to due process. He also averred that the motion was a mere scrap of paper for failure to state the time and date of hearing. He further alleged that respondent manifested gross ignorance when he resolved to grant the motion to release the injunction bond considering that the same was meant to answer for damages that he may suffer due to defendant's continued illegal possession of the land. On 15 January 2004, the OCA required [4] respondent to file his comment. In his comment [5] dated 12 February 2004, respondent judge maintained that the filing of the administrative complaint against him is hasty and uncalled for. He said there must have been a miscommunication between the complainant and his counsel because had either of them exerted effort to find out the result of the appealed case, they would have discovered that he affirmed in toto the decision of the lower court in favor of the complainant. On 14 April 2004, complainant filed [6] a motion to withdraw complaint. On 3 August 2004, the OCA submitted its recommendation, [7] thus: Respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court our recommendation that this administrative case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter and that respondent Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., be FINED in the amount of P21,000.00 for Gross Ignorance of the Law and be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. On 17 November 2004, we referred [8] the case to Court of Appeals Justice Monina Zenarosa for investigation, report and investigation. Consequently, t