487 Phil. 490
GARCIA, J.:
On the other hand, the present case - A.M. No. MTJ-02-1404 - stemmed from a sworn letter-complaint of the same complainant against the very same respondents addressed to then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo. In said sworn letter-complaint, Judge Henry B. Basilla averred:O R D E R
After considering the following facts in the record:
the court hereby resolved to dismiss the appeal for being filed out of time and frivolous.
- Judgment of the court a quo dated January 15, 1999 (mailed to counsels only on March 2, 1999) was received by defendants-appellants thru counsel on March 12, 1999 (p. 369, rec.);
- Motion for reconsideration of the decision by defendants-appellants thru counsel was filed with the court a quo on March 15, 1999 by registered mail (p. 371, registry receipt, rec.);
- Order of the court a quo dated May 7, 1999 denying the motion for reconsideration (p. 381, rec.);
- Motion for execution of judgment dated September 9, 1999 filed with the court a quo on September 14, 1999 (rec.);
- Order dated February 14, 2000 of the court a quo denying motion for execution of judgment and granting defendants fifteen (15) days to appeal (p. 400, rec.);
- Notice of appeal filed with the court a quo on November 3, 1999 (p. 412, rec.);
- Appeal fee paid after four (4) months on March 14, 2000 (p. 427, rec.); and
- Order of the court a quo dated March 14, 2000 approving the appeal. (p. 429, rec.)
The court has observed that:
And, considering the gross irregularity in the record, Judge Amado L. Becamon, Mrs. Lolita delos Reyes, Clerk of Court II, and Eddie delos Reyes, Process Server, of the 4th MCTC of Placer-Cawayan-Esperanza, Masbate are hereby ordered to explain in writing within ten (10) days from notice why they should not be dealt with administratively for grave misconduct, ignorance of law and dishonesty.
- Judge Amado L. Becamon, Mrs. Lolita delos Reyes and Mr. Eddie delos Reyes released the decision only after one month and a half (1 1/2) (p. 365, registry receipt, rec.) and the order dated May 7, 1999 denying the motion for reconsideration only after five (5) months (p. 381, registry receipt, rec.);
- Judge Amado L. Becamon extended the period of appeal fixed by the Rules (p. 400, rec.);
- The court still received the appeal fee on March 14, 2000 despite the lapse of the period of appeal (p. 427, rec.); and
- Judge Amado L. Becamon still approved the appeal despite the lapse of the period of appeal (p. 429, rec.).
Furnish a copy of this order to Honorable Court Administrator for his information.
So ordered.
In compliance with your letter dated October 25, 2000, I, in my capacity as Executive Judge, after a careful study of the record in Civil Case No. 288 (MCTC Case No. 263-C) entitled “Visitacion Mahusay vda. de Du, Plaintiff vs. Benjamin Du, et al., Defendants for Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Land”, hereby formally charge administratively Judge Amado L. Becamon, Mrs. Lolita delos Reyes, Clerk of Court II and Mr. Eddie delos Reyes, Junior Process Server, of MCTC of Placer-Cawayan-Esperanza, Masbate, for Gross Neglect of Duty and/or Grave Misconduct, for Ignorance of Law and for violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct of 1989 (specially for Judge Amado L. Becamon) ---committed by freezing and delaying the release of the decision and the order denying to reconsider it, for one and a half months and five months, respectively, and extending the period of appeal fixed by the rules, and for receiving the appeal fee and after which approving the appeal despite the time to do so had long elapsed.Clear it is from the above that both A.M. No. MTJ-02-1438 and the instant administrative case - A.M. No. MTJ-02-1404 - refer to the same subject matter, raise the same issues and involve the same parties.
Attached herewith are the following documents:
1.) Annex “A” – Order dated April 5, 2000; 2.) Annex “B” – Judgment of the court a quo dated January 15, 1999 (mailed to counsel only on March 2, 1999, p. 365, registry receipt, rec.) was received by defendants-appellants thru counsel on March 12, 1999 (p. 369, rec.);
3.) Annex “C” – Motion for Reconsideration of the decision by defendants-appellants thru counsel was filed with the court a quo on March 15, 1999 by registered mail (p. 371, registry receipt, rec.); 4.) Annex “D” – Order of the court a quo dated May 7, 1999 denying the motion for reconsideration (p. 381, registry receipt, rec.); 5.) Annex “E” – Motion for execution of judgment dated September 9, 1999 filed with the court a quo on September 14, 1999 (rec.); 6.) Annex “F” – Order dated February 14, 2000 of the court a quo denying motion for execution of judgment and granting defendants fifteen (15) days to appeal (p. 400, rec.); 6.) Annex “G” – Notice of appeal filed with the court a quo on November 3, 1999 (p. 412, rec.); 8.) Annex “H” – Appeal fee paid after four (4) months on March 14, 2000 (p. 427, rec.); 9.) Annex “I” – Order of the court a quo dated March 14, 2000 approving the appeal (p. 429, rec.).
SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:Under the said doctrine, a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause.[3] It provides that [a] final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies; and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.[4] Res judicata is based on the ground that the party to be affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has litigated the same matter in the former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again.[5]
xxx xxx xxx
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity;