Las respuestas ausentes

NATURE

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Grave Misconduct.

FACTS

- Complainant Atty. Manuel T. Ubarra, on behalf of his client Juanito A. Calderon, charges respondent, the Presiding Judge of the MTC of Pulilan, Bulacan, with grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, the violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the failure to decide within the mandated ninety-day period Criminal Case No. 89-3905.

- Juanito A. Calderon, the offended party in said Criminal Case No. 89-3905 and Criminal Case No. 90-4056, another action for Grave Threats.

- Calderon alleges in his affidavit that in the course of the trial of Criminal Case No. 89-3905 before the MTC, he noted that accused Roberto Crude worked as a houseboy of the respondent; by that time, he (Calderon) had already observed the latter's partiality in favor of the said accused

- Criminal Case No. 89-3905 was submitted for decision on 27 March 1990; on 9 August 1991, Roberto Crude married Annabelle V Manlangit, respondent's youngest sister; it was the respondent herself who solemnized that marriage at her office, as evidenced by the marriage contract; despite such marriage, respondent did not inhibit herself from hearing Criminal Case No 89-3905 and instead proceeded to render and promulgate, on 17 October 1991, a judgment acquitting Cruda, her brother-in-law.

- The answer to the letter-complaint, filed by the respondent was devoted mostly to a narration of her sincere and honest efforts to reform and rehabilitate Roberto Cruda.

- She denies having knowingly rendered an unjust judgment in favor of her brother- in-law because she "was persuaded to dismiss the same not on account that the guilt of Cruda was not proven beyond reasonable doubt but by the very reason that both the private complainant and the accused therein were in pari delicto."

- The Court referred the case to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan who recommended that proper penalty be imposed upon the respondent Judge.

ISSUE

WON the respondent have knowingly rendered an unjust judgment

HELD

NO. Under the pari delicto doctrine, where the parties to a controversy are equally culpable or guilty, they shall have no action against each other, and it shall leave

the parties where it finds them. This doctrine finds expression in the maxims “ex

dolo malo non oritur actio' and 'in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis.”

- The Court found the application of the pari delicto theory in a criminal case to be strange, to say the least. In the first place, the rule on pari delicto is a rule in civil

law. It is principally governed by Articles 1411 and 1412 of the Civil Code under the

Chapter on Void or Inexistent Contracts, and presupposes a situation where the parties are in culpability similarly situated, i.e., in eodem loco.

- That this rule can by no means apply in a criminal ease is evidenced by the aforesaid Article 1411 which provides in part that "When the nullity proceeds from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract, and the act constitutes a criminal offense, both parties being in pari delicto, they shall have no action against each other, and both shall be prosecuted." Secondly, in view of the broader grounds of public policy, the rule may not be invoked against the State. Thirdly, in the prosecution of public crimes, the complainant is the State while the private offended party is but a complaining witness. Any criminal act perpetrated by the latter on the occasion of the commission of the crime, or which may have given rise to the criminal act imputed to the accused is not the act or conduct of the State and can by no means bind it under the doctrine of pari delicto. To rule otherwise would be to establish a dangerous doctrine which would irreparably weaken the very foundations of the criminal justice system and frustrate the administration of justice. Whatever wrongful act may have been committed by the offended party may only be invoked to justify the accused's own act or mitigate his liability.

- In spite of all this, however, the respondent may not necessarily be liable for

rendering an unjust judgment as there is no convincing evidence on record to show

that she knew such judgment to be unjust and that she rendered the same with the conscious and deliberate intent to commit an injustice. She could only be, as she is hereby found, guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

- The Court noted with grave concern the respondent's revelation in her Answer that "she interceeded in the settlement of the cases pending against" Roberto Cruda. By such admission, it is clear that the respondent acted as counsel for the accused. It is therefore evident that she is guilty of improper conduct, which could only serve to diminish public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Her behavior amounted to a violation of Rule 2.01, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Disposition For grave misconduct, gross inefficiency and neglect of duty, gross

ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, respondent JUDGE LUZVIMINDA M. MAPALAD was DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, except for the monetary value of her accrued leaves, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government owned or controlled corporations.

MODINA V COURT OF APPEALS

-

;

30, 2003

YNARES SANTIAGO April

NATURE

Petition for certiorari to review CA decision affirming the RTC decision in the case entitled “Serafin Modina v Ernesto Hontarciego, Paulino Figueroa and Ramon Chiang v Merlinda Plana Chiang, intervenors”, which declared as void and inexistent the deed of definite sale dated December 17, 1975 as well as the Certificates of Title Nos. T-86912, T-86913, T-86914 in the name of Ramon Chiang.

Obligations and Contracts A2010 page

181

Prof. Labitag

FACTS

-The parcels of land in question are those under the name of Ramon Chiang (CHIANG). He theorized that subject properties were sold to him by his wife, Merlinda Plana Chiang (MERLINDA), as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 17, 1975, and were subsequently sold by CHIANG to petitioner Serafin Modina (MODINA), as shown by the Deeds of Sale, dated August 3, 1979 and August 24, 1979, respectively.

-MODINA brought a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Damages against the private respondents Ernesto Hontarciego, Paul Figueroa and Teodoro Hipalla before the Iloilo City RTC. MERLINDA presented a Complaint-in-intervention, seeking the declaration of nullity of the Deed of Sale between her husband and MODINA on the ground that the titles of the parcels of land in dispute were never legally transferred to her husband. Fraudulent acts were allegedly employed by him to obtain a Torrens Title in his favor. However, she confirmed the validity of the lease contracts with the other private respondents.

-MERLINDA also admitted that the said parcels of land were those ordered sold by Branch 2 of CFI Iloilo in “Intestate Estate of Nelson Plana” where she was appointed as the administratix, being the widow of the deceased, her first husband. An Authority to Sell was issued by the said Probate Court for the sale of the same properties.

-RTC decided in favor of MERLINDA:

(1) declaring as void and inexistent the sale of subject lots by MERLINDA in favor of CHIANG as well as the Certificates of Title in the name of Ramon Chiang;

(2) declaring as void and inexistent the sale of the same properties by CHIANG in favor of MODINA as well as Certificates of Title in the name of Serafin Modina; (3) ordering the Register of Deeds of Iloilo to cancel said certificates of title in the names of Ramon Chiang and Serafin Modina and to reinstate the original Certificates of Title in the name of Nelson Plana;

(4) ordering MODINA to vacate and restore possession of the lots in question to MERLINDA;

(5) ordering CHIANG to restitute and pay to MODINA the sum of P145.8k; and (6) ordering MODINA to pay Ernesto Hontarciego the sum of P44.5k (actual and compensatory damages) +P5k (attorney’s fees), with costs in favor of said defendants against the plaintiff.

CA affirmed RTC decision in toto.

ISSUES

1a. WON MERLINDA is barred by the principle of in pari delicto from questioning subject Deed of Sale

1b. WON the sale of subject lots should be nullified 2. WON MODINA was a purchaser in good faith

3. WON RTC decision was tainted with excess of jurisdiction

4. WON only 3/4 of subject lots should be returned to the private respondent

HELD

1a. NO

Ratio As the contracts under controversy are inexistent contracts within legal

contemplation, Articles 1411 and 1412 of the New Civil Code are inapplicable. In

pari delicto doctrine applies only to contracts with illegal consideration or subject

matter, whether the attendant facts constitute an offense or misdemeanor or whether the consideration involved is merely rendered illegal.

Reasoning RTC & CA’s statements that it is likewise null and void for being

violative of Article 1490 should just be treated as an obiter dictum as the issue of whether the parcels of land in dispute are conjugal in nature or they fall under the exceptions provided for by law, was neither raised nor litigated upon before the lower court.

1b. YES

Since one of the characteristics of a void or inexistent contract is that it does not produce any effect, MERLINDA can recover the property from petitioner who never acquired title thereover.

2. NO

MODINA is not a purchaser in good faith. CA found that there were circumstances known to MODINA which rendered their transaction fraudulent under the attendant circumstances.

- There are circumstances which are indicia of bad faith on his part.

(1) He asked his nephew, Placido Matta, to investigate the origin of the property and the latter learned

(a) that the same formed part of the properties of MERLINDA’s first husband; (b) that the said sale was between the spouses; and

(2) When the property was inspected, MODINA met all the lessees who informed that subject lands belong to MERLINDA and they had no knowledge that the same lots were sold to the husband.

Ratio As a general rule, in a sale under the Torrens system, a void title cannot give

rise to a valid title. The exception is when the sale of a person with a void title is to a third person who purchased it for value and in good faith.

- A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property.

- A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which would put a reasonable man upon his guard to make the necessary inquiries, and then claim that he acted in good faith. His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his wilful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor’s title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like situation.

3. YES

Ratio A CFI (now RTC) has jurisdiction over a case brought to rescind a sale made

upon prior authority of a Probate Court. This does not constitute an interference or review of the order of a co-equal Court since the Probate Court has no jurisdiction over the question of title to subject properties. Consequently, a separate action may be brought to determine the question of ownership

4. NO

Ratio In a Petition for Review, only questions of law may be raised. An issue which

was neither averred in the Complaint nor raised during the trial before the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as such a recourse would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.

- This issue was never an issue before the lower court and therefore, the petitioner

Obligations and Contracts A2010 page

182

Prof. Labitag

Disposition Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.