CRIMPRO TRIAL, RULE 119

Title AM No. RT 04-1888

MAQUIRAN v. GRAGEDA Date: 11 Feb 2005
Ponente: Austria- Martinez, J.
Edgardo Maquiran, complainant Judge Jesus Grageda, respondent
Administrative Complaint filed by the Chairman of Banned Chemical Research and Information Center, Inc. an association
of Filipino claimants banana plantation workers exposed to a harmful chemical, against the Judge for grave abuse of
discretion, and violation of BP 129 among others.
FACTS
Case timeline:
1. This arose from cases for damages against foreign corporations (DOLE, Del Monte, Shell among others) filed with
the US courts. The US courts dismissed the case and required them to filed their claims in their home countries.
2. With this a civil case was raffled to the court of respondent judge.
3. Sometime in 1997, the cases were globally settled under a COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
4. With this the plaintiffs and defendants moved for the approval of the SETTLEMENT. The court issued an
OMNIBUS ORDER approving the SETTLEMENT.
5. The plaintiffs moved for EXECUTION. It was granted through a WRIT OF EXECUTION. The WRIT was returned
unsatisfied.
6. Defendants in the case moved for QUASHAL OF THE WRIT and prayed for RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE to prove that
the settlement moved to be executed has already been satisfied. With this they manifested that they are willinbg
to shoulder the expenses of the judge in receiving evidence IN TEXAS, USA.
7. The judge granted the defendants’ motion.
8. The judge wrote to the OCA asking for permission to perform the reception of evidence. While pending he also
wrote another letter, this time asking for leave to visit his daughter in the US. The second letter was granted by
the Court.
9. The judge conducted the proceeding in the Consulate Office in San Francisco.
10. This prompted COMPLAINANT to file an administrative case alleging violation of BP 129 on territorial jurisdiction
of the court when he conducted court session outside of his territory WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE SC.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
1. He contends that his action was made in good faith. He relies on Section 6, Rule 135 of the RULES OF COURT
which provides that when there is no specific law or rules to carry out court’s jurisdiction, he may adopt suitable
process or mode to affect the same.
ISSUE/S
I. WON it was proper for the judge to receive evidence outside of his territorial jurisidiction.
RATIO
NO. The proceedings abroad are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts. He is the presiding judge of
Branch 4 of the RTC for the 11th Judicial Region, the territorial jurisdiction of which is limited only to Panabo, Davao Del
Norte.

Cases are decided on the basis of evidence presented before the court, thus it is incumbent upon the party who is to be
benefited by such evidence to produce the same, no matter how voluminous and burdensome, in accordance with the
rules for the court’s appreciation and evaluation. It is not the JUDGE’S duty to secure these documents for the
defendants.

RULING
JUDGE IS SUSPENDED FOR SIX MONTHS.
CABRITO