A.M. No. RTJ-03-1791 - DOMINGO B. PANTIG, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LAMBERTO A. DAING, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 46, JUDGE CARMELITA GUTIERREZ-FRUELDA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, JUDGE PEDRO M. SUNGA, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 42, ALL IN SAN FERNANDO CITY, PAMPANGA AND JUDGE PAMEL

Ruling

Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing a new judgment is hereby rendered as follows: That portion of the Decision rendered on August 24, 1969 confirming applicant-respondents title to Lot 1471, is hereby set aside; Petitioners title to Lot 1471, described in plan AP-19164 (Exhibit D) and in its technical description (Exhibit H), is hereby confirmed and orders that the same be decreed in an undivided equal shares in favor of petitioners Baltazar Pantig, Domingo Pantig, Pedro Pantig, Filipinos, of legal ages, all married, the first two being residents of Sexmoan, Pampanga, and the last two being residents of Guagua, Pampanga; and Upon the finality of this decision, respondent Venancio Baltazar is hereby ordered to surrender possession of Lot 1471 to the petitioners and to render within sixty (60) days thereof an accounting of the produce thereof from 1969. Once this decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree issue. With costs against applicants, respondent Venancio Baltazar. [2] The April 5, 1984 decision of Judge Kalalo was affirmed by both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. [3] It became final and executory on February 7, 1997. However, in spite of the issuance of a writ of execution and an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) in the name of complainant Pantig, the Baltazars continued to be in possession of the property without any accounting of the produce rendered. Complainant Pantig alleges that the final and executory decision has not been implemented because of the maneuverings of the Baltazars through their counsel, Atty. Ernesto Pangalangan, and the acts of the respondent judges which amount to conduct unbecoming of officers of the court. As summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the acts complained of are: a) JUDGE LAMBERTO A. DAING, JR. Complainant alleges that he filed an indirect contempt charge against the Baltazars counsel, Atty. Ernesto Pangalangan, docketed as SP Civil Case No. 12056 before the RTC, Branch 45, San Fernando City presided by respondent Judge Lamberto A. Daing, Jr. A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by Atty. Pangalangan after which the court ordered him to file his position paper. Complainant received a copy of Atty. Pangalangans position paper on 28 June 2000 and filed his comment thereon on 03 August 2000. However, despite lapse of almost two (2) years, respondent Judge has not resolved the motion to dismiss in violation of the rules. b) JUDGE CARMELITA GUTIERREZ-FRUELDA Complainant avers that, relative to the above-mentioned Land Registration Case No. N-850 LRC Rec. No. N-35668 entitled Baltazar Pantig, et al. vs. Venancio Baltazar, RTC, Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga issued an order on 01 September 1999 finding defendant Baltazars guilty of indirect contempt and ordering them to pay P 25,000.00 each for their refusal to render an accounting on the produce of the subject fishpond from 1969 up to the present. Upon the motion of plaintiff Pantigs, the court iss