Gozun v.
Liangco
A.M. No. MTJ-97-1136
August 30, 2000
(Aspect of the Proceedings)
Point of the Case:
Judges are expressly prohibited from engaging in the private practice of the law or
from giving professional advice to clients. The respondent judge argues that the
"resolution" he issued was a amere expression of his legal opinion and not a
judgment or order "which adjudicates and settles rights and obligations of the
parties". The function of the court is limited to adjudication of actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable or enforceable. Unlike
lawyers, judges cannot render legal advice.
Facts of the Case:
Complainant Hermogenes Gozun was in open and adverse possession of subject land for
a period of more than thirty years. His family's house was erected on the land. The
Municipality of San Luis, Pampanga claimed to own the same lot. On January 12,
1996, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Luis, Pampanga issued Resolution No. 26-98
stating that the Sangguniang Bayan of San Luis, Pampanga considers the lot under
Tax Dec. No. 114 owned by the Municipal Government of San Luis, specifically the
lot where Mr. Hermogenes Gozun and family were "squatting" and declared that the
lot as the new site for the Rural Health Center. On May 24, 1996, Romulo Batu, Vice
Mayor, on behalf of the Sangguniang Bayan, filed with the MTC, San Luis, Pampanga,
a petition for declaratory relief. On the same day, respondent judge issued a
resolution, reasoning that the municipality of San Luis may enact resolutions and
ordinances, through the Sangguniang Bayan, to regulate the use of property within
its jurisdiction; that Resolution 34-96 is not contrary to law, morals and public
policy; that the municipal mayor, through an executive order, may order the
Philippine National Police or any government law enforcement agency to enforce or
implement the resolution; and lastly, that squatting in government property is
considered a "nuisance per so". The respondent judge ruled.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge exercised impartiality
Ruling:
In this case, respondent judge not only acted without jurisdiction, but in so
acting ignored blatantly the basic rules of fair play. Complainant was not notified
of nor made party to the petition. This chance was not given to complainant Gozun,
and consequently, because of an arbitrary act of respondent judge, complainant's
house was demolished and he and his family were rendered homeless. Respondent judge
argues that the "resolution" he issued was a mere expression of his legal opinion
and not a judgment or order "which adjudicates and settles rights and obligations
of the parties." Respondent's argument betrays either gross ignorance of or
contempt for the law, neither of which is acceptable, for it is given that a member
of the bench must keep himself constantly abreast of legal and jurisprudential
developments, bearing in mind that this learning process never ceases even as it is
so indispensable in the correct dispensation of justice. The resolution, suffice it
to say, is legally flawed, bore all earmarks and characteristics of an order or
judgment disposing of the case. Sans reception of evidence, respondent judge made
conclusions of fact, labeling complainant as a "squatter", stating that his house
was a nuisance per se. Without citing any law or jurisprudence, respondent judge
gave the municipality a "go signal" to demolish complainant's house even using
force. The rule of impartiality is applied more strictly to municipal, metropolitan
and regional trial court judges. This is because they are "judicial front liners"
who have direct contact with the litigating parties. the Court ordered the
DISMISSAL of respondent Judge Daniel B. Liangco from the service, with forfeiture
of all retirement benefits and accumulated leave credits, if any, and with
prejudice to reinstatement or reemployment in any branch, instrumentality or agency
of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
