334 Phil. 186
REGALADO, J.:
1. On April 14, 1992, DBP filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Julio Agcaoili which was docketed as Civil Case No. 2551 pending before MTCC, Branch I, Laoag City where respondent was the permanently appointed Presiding Judge thereat;The Clerk of Court
2. On August 26, 1992, respondent issued an Order setting Civil Case No. 2551 for Preliminary Conference on September 10, 1992. On said date, however, while plaintiff and counsel were present, defendant and counsel were absent. Thus, respondent Judge granted complainant’s manifestation that the case be reset to October 7, 1992;
3. After the Order dated September 10, 1992 was issued, respondent was detailed by the Honorable Supreme Court to preside over MTC of Manila on October 2, 1992;
4. Judge Manuelito A. Cid of MTC of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, became the Acting Presiding Judge of MTCC, Branch I, Laoag City;
5. On March 29, 1993, plaintiff DBP filed a MANIFESTATION/MOTION submitted to the Court for consideration praying that the case be resolved;
6. On May 11, 1993, both parties filed a Joint Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on the allegations therein. However, respondent alleged that the record does not reflect whether or not Judge Manuelito Cid did act on the MANIFESTATION/MOTION, Joint Motion to Suspend Proceedings submitted for resolution;
7. On October 14, 1993, Acting Presiding Judge Cid unilaterally and arbitrarily rendered Judgment in Civil Case No. 2551, finding for the plaintiff and ordering defendant to vacate the subject premises;
8. On November 23, 1993 DBP filed a Motion for Execution of the Judgment dated October 14, 1993 on the alleged ground that the decision had become final and executory. However, on November 25, 1993 the MTCC-I received by registered mail a Notice of Appeal dated November 4, 1993 filed by defendant’s counsel Atty. Pablo P. Magno which was registered on November 5, 1993, within the reglementary period to appeal. However, the clerk of Atty. Magno erred in addressing the envelope as follows:
10. On December 1, 1993, however, Judge Cid issued an Order, considering the Notice of Appeal as filed within the reglementary period;“The reglementary period therefor allowed has already lapsed for reasons which defendant has failed to amplify, the appeal was not perfected there being no docket fee and appeal bond submitted as other requisites for its perfection as required by the Rules. Other matters such as the hearing of incidents of the case as alleged in the telegraphic transmittal of counsel for the defendant are rendered moot and academic.
11. On December 8, 1993, the MTCC-I received a Motion for Reconsideration (of) Order of December 1993 and to Dismiss Appeal filed by plaintiff. However, MTCC-I received a Telegram addressed to Judge Cid from Atty. Pablo Magno, requesting that incidents in subject case be set for hearing on September 20, 1993;
12. On December 21, 1993, Judge Cid issued the following Order:
13. On January 19, 1994, DBP filed a Motion for Execution by virtue of which a Writ of Execution dated January 21, 1994 was issued by Acting Executive Judge Cid. But the records as alleged by respondent do not show that an order was promulgated by Judge Cid granting the Motion for Execution furnishing a copy thereof to the defendant or Atty. Pablo Magno;“CIVIL CASE NO. 2551, DBP VS. JULIO AGCAOILI DEFENDANT JULIO AGCAOILI’S COUNSEL FILED THROUGH MAILS MOTION RECONSIDERATION ORDER DATED DECEMBER 21, 1993 ENCLOSING DOCUMENTS SHOWING APPEAL ON TIME, OFFICIAL RECEIPT OF PAYNET (PAYMENT) OF DOCKET FEE AND APPEAL.
14. On January 24, 1994 respondent Judge returned to his permanent station;
15. On February 21, 1994 defendant Julio Agcaoili filed an Affidavit with MTC-I and the MTC-I received a telegram from Atty. Magno addressed to Judge Cid which reads:
16. On March 7, 1994 DBP filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Designate DBP Special Sheriff and since the issue of whether or not a proper appeal was perfected by defendant Agcaoili, respondent issued an Order dated March 10, 1994 which reads:“In the interest of justice, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to verify immediately as to the truthfulness of the allegations contained in the telegram of Atty. Pablo P. Magno, counsel for the defendant to this Court dated February 22, 1994 regarding the Motion for Reconsideration dated December 21, 1993 which he allegedly filed through the mail and where documents showing that appeal was filed on time, the official receipt of payment of docket fee and appeal bond were enclosed therein. A report on the matter should be submitted to the Court within 10 days from today.
After investigation and based on the records, the docketing fees were actually paid on November 10, 1993 as per Official Receipts Nos. 3344127 and 3344036 (pp. 128-129, 132, rec.);“As prayed for by Atty. Herman Coloma, counsel for the defendant, that he be given 15 days within which to file his position paper on the observations he has made on the proceedings of the case leading to the rendition of the Judgment which observations seem to convey that there was non-compliance of the pertinent provisions of the Rules on Summary Procedure in arriving (at) the aforesaid Judgment of this case, the same is hereby granted.
17. Hence, on April 18, 1994, respondent Judge issued an ORDER which set for hearing pending incidents in Civil Case No. 2551 on May 20, 1994 at 8:30 A.M. but said hearing was reset to July 14, 1994 with notice properly served to both parties;
18. On July 14, 1994, a new collaborating counsel for defendant Julio Agcaoili, Atty. German Coloma, appeared; but because of the absence of DBP’s counsel despite notice and the manifestations of Atty. Coloma, thereafter respondent issued an ORDER explaining the available facts and the situation existing, and rescheduled the hearing of all incidents on August 11, 1994 at 8:30 A.M.;
19. On August 11, 1994, both parties appeared in Court. After manifestations were made, Atty. Bacolor of DBP asked that the hearing on his Ex-Parte Motion to Designate DBP Sheriff be reset after 15 days and the case was reset to August 18, 1994;
20. On August 18, 1994, both parties appeared thru their respective counsel who manifested their respective theories/positions. After hearing both parties, respondent issued an ORDER which reads:
23. After October 11, 1994, the Court was furnished with papers demonstrating negotiations between Julio Agcaoili and DBP and by acquiescence of the parties the proceedings were in effect suspended. But on March 15, 1995, respondent issued the following ORDER:“The case, not having been heard on October 27, 1994, as previously scheduled, by reason of the fact that the herein Presiding Judge was then in the Supreme Court on official business and as in the interregnum, there has been submitted to this Court a proposed agreement to repurchase the foreclosed properties including the lot and house subject matter of this action, which may lead to a Compromise Agreement, and since the Court has not as yet been informed as to whether or not said agreement has already been realized/finalized, in the interest of justice, this Court sets the Position Paper and the Proposed Agreement to Repurchase for hearing on March 31, 1995 at 9:00 in the morning.
24. For the hearing on March 31, 1995, Atty. Coloma requested for a subpoena upon Mr. Francisco Domingo, DBP Branch Manager of Laoag City but he was not present on first call of the calendar. Hence, the respondent effected another subpoena to be served upon him to appear at 11:00 A.M. on the same date of hearing. He refused to comply;“WHEREFORE, based on all the foregoing, and considering further the inherent power of the Court vested in it under Section 5 (g), Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of Court, to amend and control its processes and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice, this Court has no alternative but to declare a mis-trial and set aside all the proceedings held in the case at bar; to (include) indispensable parties namely: Modesty Ranada, Antonio H. Agcaoili, and Lucila Goyma, in addition to the original defendant Julio H. Agcaoili in this action. Consequently, let this be tried anew.
25. On May 18, 1995, respondent after discussing the issues raised and the facts established, decided in his ORDER, thus -
a) Respondent honestly and in good faith believes that the proceedings held before Judge Manuelito A. Cid are full of serious irregularities and violations of law which render the JUDGMENT dated October 14, 1993, ORDER dated December 21, 1993, and WRIT OF EXECUTION dated January 21, 1994 null and void, among others;We are not persuaded by the remonstrations of respondent judge; on the contrary, we are favorably impressed with the merits of the evaluation submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator.
b) Respondent honestly and in good faith believes that he had to rule and decide the new issues raised by counsel of defendant Agcaoili which complainant DBP failed to oppose and rebut despite notice and opportunity given by respondent to do so;
c) Respondent honestly and in good faith believes that he attended to all the incidents of the case before him without unnecessary delay. Had complainant DBP entertained the opinion that it was mandatory for respondent to implement the WRIT OF EXECUTION issued by Judge Cid as a ministerial duty, it should have forthwith filed with the Regional Trial Court and/or with the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus questioning the actuations of respondent and compelling respondent to implement said WRIT OF EXECUTION, a remedy which i(t) failed to avail (itself of) and pursue; and
d) Even in the remote possibility that the respondent’s ORDER dated May 18, 1995 is completely erroneous, nevertheless respondent rendered the same in good faith and the remedy of DBP is to appeal therefrom or question said ORDER by means of certiorari, prohibition and/or injunction with the appellate courts questioning the validity of said ORDER.