Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    Garay v. Venadas

    Uploaded by

    Sabrito
    Judge Venadas issued a writ of possession granting a property to a lawyer, Atty. Garay, who had previously represented the previous owners, the Sombilons. The Sombilons contested the purchase, arguing Atty. Garay was barred from buying due to their prior representation. Judge Venadas held the writ in abeyance. Atty. Garay filed an administrative complaint against Judge Venadas for grave abuse of authority and misconduct. The Court ruled Judge Venadas was liable as he blatantly disregarded basic procedural rules by allowing the Sombilons' motion despite lack of notice, depriving the other parties of due process. Blatant disregard of rules of procedure and law constitutes grave ignorance punish

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garay v. Venadas

    Uploaded by

    Sabrito
    104 views1 page
    Judge Venadas issued a writ of possession granting a property to a lawyer, Atty. Garay, who had previously represented the previous owners, the Sombilons. The Sombilons contested the purchase, arguing Atty. Garay was barred from buying due to their prior representation. Judge Venadas held the writ in abeyance. Atty. Garay filed an administrative complaint against Judge Venadas for grave abuse of authority and misconduct. The Court ruled Judge Venadas was liable as he blatantly disregarded basic procedural rules by allowing the Sombilons' motion despite lack of notice, depriving the other parties of due process. Blatant disregard of rules of procedure and law constitutes grave ignorance punish

    Original Description:

    PALE / ETHICS DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Venadas issued a writ of possession granting a property to a lawyer, Atty. Garay, who had previously represented the previous owners, the Sombilons. The Sombilons contested the purchase, arguing Atty. Garay was barred from buying due to their prior representation. Judge Venadas held the writ in abeyance. Atty. Garay filed an administrative complaint against Judge Venadas for grave abuse of authority and misconduct. The Court ruled Judge Venadas was liable as he blatantly disregarded basic procedural rules by allowing the Sombilons' motion despite lack of notice, depriving the other parties of due process. Blatant disregard of rules of procedure and law constitutes grave ignorance punish

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    104 views1 page

    Garay v. Venadas

    Uploaded by

    Sabrito
    Judge Venadas issued a writ of possession granting a property to a lawyer, Atty. Garay, who had previously represented the previous owners, the Sombilons. The Sombilons contested the purchase, arguing Atty. Garay was barred from buying due to their prior representation. Judge Venadas held the writ in abeyance. Atty. Garay filed an administrative complaint against Judge Venadas for grave abuse of authority and misconduct. The Court ruled Judge Venadas was liable as he blatantly disregarded basic procedural rules by allowing the Sombilons' motion despite lack of notice, depriving the other parties of due process. Blatant disregard of rules of procedure and law constitutes grave ignorance punish

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    New Code of Judicial Conduct – Qualities of an Ideal Judge

    Competence and Diligence

    GARAY v. VENADAS
    A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000, June 16, 2014

    FACTS: Spouses Sombilon were the previous owners of a property in Bukidnon. The said property
    was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank and was subsequently foreclosed. The one-year
    redemption period lapsed but spouses Sombilon failed to redeem the property.

    Spouses Sombilon sought the help of their former lawyer, Atty. Garay, and thereafter went to the
    bank with him to inquire. The next day, Atty. Garay went to the bank alone and offered to buy the
    property. Upon learning this, the spouses offered to buy back the property from PNB. The bank
    advised them to make a down payment to formalize their offer, which the spouses failed to do.

    The bank decided to approve the purchase offer of Atty. Garay. PNB filed an Ex-Parte Petition for
    the Issuance of a Writ of Possession before the RTC. The presiding judge, Judge Venadas, issued an
    Order granting the Petition and subsequently issued the Writ. The spouses moved for a
    reconsideration, arguing that, as their former counsel, Atty. Garay was barred from purchasing the
    property pursuant to Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code.

    Judge Venadas issued an order holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ. In its
    decision, the court ruled that although ordinarily a writ of possession is issued by the court because
    it is a mandatory and ministerial duty, an exception to this rule that if the implementation and
    enforcement of the writ would work great injustice.

    Aggrieved, Atty Garay and PNB filed a Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for issuance of a
    Temporary Restraining Order. Atty. Garay also filed an Administrative Complaint against Judge
    Venadas, charging him with Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct. Atty. Garay claims that
    Judge Venadas should be administratively sanctioned for holding in abeyance the Writ of Possession
    he earlier issued and for ignoring the required proof of service under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15
    of the Rules of Court as he proceeded to hear the motion despite lack of notice to PNB.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Venadas should be held administratively liable when he blatantly
    disregarded the basic rules of procedure and law.

    HELD: The Court ruled in the affirmative. One qualities expected from a judge is the exercise of
    competence and diligence. A judge owes the public and the court the duty to know the law by heart
    and to have the basic rules of procedure at the palm of his hands.

    Records show that spouses Sombilon failed to comply with the three-day notice rule and the
    required proof of service, thereby rendering the motion fatally defective. Despite this, Judge Venadas
    still took cognizance of the motion filed by spouses Sombilon, depriving PNB and Atty. Garay of their
    right to due process.

    Blatant disregard of basic, elementary, and well-known rules of procedure and law is gross
    ignorance of the law, which is classified as a serious charge under Rule 140, Section 8 of the Rules of
    Court, punishable by either dismissal, suspension or a fine. Thus, the Court finds Judge Venadas, Sr.
    guilty of grave abuse of authority bordering on gross ignorance of the law and is hereby fined the
    amount of P20,000.00.

    You might also like