Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 26 2005.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1990-RTJ (Braulio Katipunan, Jr. vs. Judge Teresa P. Soriaso, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila.)

Considering the Report dated November 9, 2004 of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

1. COMPLAINT dated 26 February 2004 of Mr. Braulio Katipunan, Jr. charging respondent Judge with Ignorance of the Law, Incompetence, Bias, Rendering Unjust Interlocutory Order and Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility relative to Civil Case No. 87-39891 entitled "Braulio Katipunan, Jr. vs. Miguel Katipunan, et. al."

Complainant, who is the plaintiff in the aforesaid case, alleges that a decision dismissing the case was rendered by the lower court. He appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals which reversed the lower court's decision and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 168394 and restored TCT No. 109193 in the name of the plaintiff.

Defendants elevated the case to the Supreme Court in a Petition for Review. The petition was dismissed in a Decision promulgated on 30 January 2002. In addition, the High Court also directed the defendants to deliver to plaintiff (herein complainant) the rentals received by them for the five-door apartment corresponding to the period from January 1986 up to the time the property is returned to complainant.

The Decision having become final, complainant filed on 17 July 2003 a Motion for Execution. Respondent Judge granted the issuance of the writ of execution insofar as transferring the property back to the complainant but deferred the enforcement of the money judgment "to give defendants in said case the opportunity to be heard as to the correct amount of rental to be returned to the plaintiff although according to her "the same could be discerned from the Supreme Court's decision".

Thereafter, the case has been reset several times because of non-appearance of parties. On 26 September 2003, herein complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Issue a Final Writ of Execution. Respondent Judge gave the defendant ten (10) days to comment after which the matter will be considered submitted for resolution.

In an undated order, respondent Judge again set the pending incident for hearing on 21 January 2004. On said date, she issued an order considering the motion submitted for resolution. However, up to the filing of the complaint, no resolution has been issued by respondent Judge; and

2. COMMENT dated 7 June 2004 of respondent Judge denying the charges in the complaint. She alleges that on 10 March 1987, herein complainant filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale against Miguel Katipunan, et. al.

After trial, a Decision dated 2 September 1992 dismissing the complaint was rendered by then presiding judge of RTC, Branch 27. However, the Court of Appeals, on 31 July 1997, rendered a Decision the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered annulling the Deed of Sale. Consequently, TCT No. 168394 is hereby declared null and void and of no force and effect. The Register of Deeds of Manila is directed to cancel the same and restore TCT No. 109193 in the name of Braulio Katipunan, Jr.

SO ORDERED.

Defendants filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court which rendered a Decision on 20 January 2002, the dispositive of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 31, 1997 in CA-G.R. CV No. 45928 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that petitioners Edgardo Balguma and Leopoldo Balguma, Jr. are ordered to turn over to respondent Braulio Katipunan, Jr. the rentals they received for the five-door apartment corresponding to the period from January 1986 up to the time the property shall have been returned to him, with interest at the legal rate. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

On 17 July 2003, complainant filed a Motion for Execution which the court partially granted in its Order dated 6 August 2003, to wit:

With the Notice of Judgment with attached Decision promulgated on January 30, 2002, in G.R. No. 132415 (Miguel Katipunan, et al., vs. Braulio Katipunan, Jr.) and Entry of Judgment thereof from the Supreme Court having been received by this Court, the Motion for Execution filed by the plaintiff is GRANTED, enforcement of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 31, 1997 in CA-G.R. CV No. 45928 insofar as the cancellation and restoration of the title in the name of the plaintiffs Braulio Katipunan, Jr.

In order to enforce the modification in the Decision of the Court of Appeals as decreed by the Supreme Court, although it could be discerned from the latter decision, if only to give the defendants an opportunity to be heard as to the correct amount of rentals to be returned to the plaintiff, the determination thereof is set for hearing on August 20, 2003, at 1:00 p.m.

Notify the parties.

SO ORDERED.

The scheduled hearing was reset several times due to non-appearance of the parties. On 26 September 2003, complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Issuance of Final Writ of Execution.

On 28 April 2004, the court resolved to grant the motion for execution of the modified portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals as decreed by the Supreme Court. The corresponding Final Writ of Execution dated 20 May 2004 was subsequently issued.

Respondent judge explains that she did not immediately grant the execution on the money judgment because she would like to find out if in the meanwhile payments or any other supervening event transpired as would charge the amount due. Moreover, Rule 39, Sec. 8 (e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the motion for execution and the writ of execution to state amount due as of the date of the issuance of the writ.

EVALUATION: The pivotal issue in this administrative case is whether respondent judge erred when she deferred the issuance of the writ of execution as regards the money judgment provided in the decision. Sec. 8 (e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is clear:

(e) In all cases the writ of execution shall specifically state the amount of interest, costs, damages, rents, or profits due as to the date of the issuance of the writ, aside from the principal obligation under the judgment. For this purpose, the motion for execution shall specify the amounts of the foregoing relief sought by the movant.

The parties failed to attach a copy of complainant's motion for execution but it could be discerned from the pleadings that there was no mention of the specific amount of rental that should be collected from the judgment obligor. Hence, the requirement imposed by the aforequoted rule was lacking in complainant's motion for issuance of a writ of execution.

Therefore, respondent judge did not err in setting another hearing to determine the correct amount of rental that should be collected from the judgment obligor. If ever the determination of the specific amount was delayed, it could no longer be attributed to respondent Judge but to the parties themselves, herein complainant included, for their failure to attend the scheduled hearings.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court the recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation thereon to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Teresa P. Soriaso is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court