A.M. No. MTJ-97-1136 - HERMOGENES T. GOZUN, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. DANIEL B. LIANGCO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, AND ACTING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, MEXICO- SAN LUIS, PAMPANGA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this petition will merit your favorable consideration and appropriate action for the sake of public interest. On the very same day, May 24, 1996, respondent judge issued a resolution, reasoning: First, the municipality of San Luis, Pampanga through its Sangguniang Bayan may enact resolutions and ordinances to regulate the use of property within its jurisdiction. Second, Resolution No. 34-96 is not contrary to law, morals and public policy. Third, the municipal mayor through an executive order may order the Philippine National Police or any government law enforcement agency to enforce or implement the resolution, using reasonable force if necessary and justified. Fourth, squatting in government property is considered a "nuisance per se". Respondent judge ruled: [9] With the issuance by the Municipal Mayor of an executive order, the municipality of San Luis may order the Philippine National Police (PNP) stationed in San Luis, Pampanga to effect the eviction of Hermogenes Gozun and all other persons who may be claiming any right under him from Lot No. 114 covered by Tax Declaration No. 6030 (underscoring ours)." Again, on the same day, March 24, 1996, the municipal mayor, Jovito C. Bondoc, pursuant to the aforequoted resolution, issued Executive Order No. 1, series of 1996, ordering the PNP to implement Resolution No. 34-96. [10] Note that complainant Gozun was not served with summons or given notice of the petition for declaratory relief. [11] On June 2, 1996, complainant Gozun learned about the resolution. [12] On June 3, 1996, complainant Gozun's wife [13] together with other public school teachers [14] went to the office of respondent judge. When asked about the resolution, respondent judge answered, "I ng Apung Guinu yu y Mayor Bondoc at kaya ko makisabi " ("Your God is Mayor Bondoc and you should talk to him). [15] On August 8, 1996, agents of the municipal government demolished complainant Gozun's house, using respondent judge's resolution and the mayor's executive order as basis. [16] On December 18, 1996, complainant Gozun filed this administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator. [17] He averred that respondent judge's issuance of the resolution amounts to "gross misconduct, gross inefficiency and incompetence." [18] Complainant Gozun further accused the municipal mayor of having bribed respondent judge. Mayor Bondoc told complainant Gozun that "the respondent judge is in his pocket ...because he (Mayor Bondoc) has given him (respondent judge) a lot of things (" dacal naku a regalo kaya "). [19] On January 20, 1997, the Office of the Court Administrator [20] submitted the petition to this Court for its consideration, recommending that the complaint be given due course. [21] On March 21, 1997, the Court resolved to require respondent judge to comment thereon, within ten (10) days from notice. [22] On May 15, 1997, respondent judge submitted his comment, denying the charges an