93 OCA v.

Liangco
Facts:
Complainant Gozun was in open and adverse possession of subject land for a
period of more than thirty years. His familys house was erected on the land.
However, the Municipality of San Luis, Pampanga claimed to own the same
lot. Thereafter, the Vice-Mayor filed in the sala of the respondent judge a
Petition for Declaratory Relief, requesting the respondent judge to render
legal opinion in the issued resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan for the
construction of Rural Health Center on the place where the Gozun is living
and to issue an order to the PNP to assist the Municipal Mayor in
implementing said Resolution.
On the very same day, the respondent judge render a favorable opinion to
the petition of the Vice-Mayor. Also, in the same day, the Mayor issued an
order to the PNP to execute the resolution of the Sangguning Bayan based
on the favorable resolution of the respondent judge.
Gozun never served with summons or given notice to the said petition for
declaratory relief. When their house was demolished, Gozun filed an
administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator. He
averred that respondent judges issuance of the resolution amounts to "gross
misconduct, gross inefficiency and incompetence." The OCA recommended
the dismissal of the respondent judge. The SC upheld the recommendation
of the OCA and directed the OCA to initiate a disbarment proceedings
against the respondent judge for misconduct as a member of the Bar.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge should be disbarred?
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent judge be disbarred.
The evidence on record overwhelmingly supports the finding that respondent
is guilty of gross misconduct and inexcusable ignorance of well-established
rules of procedures.
This Court explained the concept of gross misconduct as any inexcusable,
shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned
with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights of the
parties or to the right determination of the cause. The motive behind this
conduct is generally a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.

In the case at bar, respondent acted upon the Petition for Declaratory Relief
filed by the Sangguniang Bayan of San Luis, Pampanga, without the
mandatory notice to Gozun who would be affected by the action. The records
show that respondent, upon receipt of the Petition, had it docketed in his
court, designated Gozun as respondent in the case title, and quickly
disposed of the matter by issuing a Resolution all on the same day that the
Petition was filed without notice and hearing.
Moreover, we are appalled by respondents ignorance of the basic rules of
procedure. His wanton use of court processes in this case without regard for
the repercussions on the rights and property of others clearly shows his
unfitness to remain a member of the bar.
As a member of the bar and former judge, respondent is expected to be
well-versed in the Rules of Procedure. This expectation is imposed upon
members of the legal profession, because membership in the bar is in the
category of a mandate for public service of the highest order. Lawyers are
oath-bound servants of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by
inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the
advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which they have sworn to
be fearless crusaders.