Grajo, Salvador, Jr. H.

Admin Law

Antonio Almendra v. Judge Enrique Asis

A.M. RTJ-00-1550, April 6, 2000

Facts:
Complainant Almendra filed three administrative complaints against Respondent
Judge Asis. First administrative complaint involved an action for quieting of title in which the
Courts awarded Lots 4729 & 4731 to the complainant but declared by Judge Asis to Thelma
and Arthur Almendra as the rightful owners. Second administrative complaint was about an
action for recovery of property with prayer for issuance of writ of possession filed against the
complainant by certain Refugia Dictado. Judge Asis decided to issue the writ of possession
in favour of the latter. And the third administrative complaint was a libel case against retired
fiscal but later dismissed by the respondent Judge Asis for lack of probable cause.
In the three administrative complaints, Antonio Almendra repeatedly imputed charges
of bias, partiality, and unfairness against respondent Judge Asis.

Issue:
Whether respondent Judge is liable in the administrative complaints filed by the
complainant.

Held:
Yes. In the first administrative complaint, respondent Judge is liable in rendering
decision in Civil Case No.214. The Judge acted contrary to the Doctrine of Res Judicata.
The decision rendered by respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 214 and the decision of the
Court of Appeals in upholding the decision of the lower court in Civil Case No.3773 clearly
show that the issues, parties, and subject matter are identical. Here, Civil Case No.3773 had
reached finality, Judge Asis should refrain from hearing the merits of Civil Case No.214
because issues in the latter case had been settled in a previous judgment involving the
same parties. A judge cannot amend a final decision, more so where the decision was
promulgated by an appellate court. Judges should respect the orders, resolutions and
decisions of the higher courts. Thus, Judge Asis is liable for serious inefficiency.
In the second and third administrative complaints, Complainant failed to show that
respondent Judge acted with fraud, dishonesty or corruption in the issuance of a writ of
possession in an action for recovery of property filed by Refugia Dictado. Further,
respondent Judges dismissal of a libel charge is correct because there was no malice in
writing the subject letter which was shown to be a privileged communication. In the second
and third administrative complaints, the court finds no adequate evidence to support the
allegations of the two supplemental complaints.