[A.M. No. MTJ-91-567.

December 6, 1996]

MODESTO T. UALAT, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE O. RAMOS, respondent.

[A.M. No. MTJ-91-588. December 6, 1996]

QUIRINO SABIO, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE O. RAMOS, respondent.

FACTS:
Complainant Sabio claims that he is a tenant of an agricultural land owned by Coma. On the other hand,
complainant Ualat alleges that he is Sabio’s caretaker. Complainant Sabio filed with Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a complaint for Recovery of Possession against the landowner, Coma
and his brother, Raymundo Sabio. The landowner, on the other hand filed against complainants a case for
illegal detention with Judge Ramos’ Sala.

On July 23, 1990, DARAB ruled in favor of the complainants. However Judge Ramos rendered a decision in
favor of the Coma, the land owner.

Complainant now contend that Judge Ramos using his “power and authority” took cognizance of the case
because of personal interest and motive. They claim that during the pendency of the case, Judge Ramos,
thru his son and brother entered into a contract with Coma and cultivated a portion of the land subject
matter of the case. And also contend that it is the Department of Agrarian Reform which has exclusive
jurisdiction for this case.

Complainant Ualat contends that his residence cannot be levied upon by the sheriff because it is not subject
of the lease and he could not be held “jointly and severally” liable to pay the obligations of Sabio as
agricultural tenant.

Further, Judge Ramos denies allegations and alleges that he did not know about the complaint with DAR
and its resolution because none of this was stated in the pleadings or mentioned in the proceedings. He
denies that he decided based on his personal interests and motive. The further Judge explained that he
was held jointly and severally liable because he was co-defendant in the case. However, he could have
timely filed an appeal for this matter. In this case, he only appealed when judgement had already been
executed.

In the Investigation by Executive RTC Judge, It was found that respondent Judge in deed was not aware of
the DAR case when he rendered the decision. Moreover, in this case, there was no allegation in the
complaint that the case was of agrarian nature. It was also found that the contract entered into was in deed
a civil lease contract and that comp violated it by subleasing it to Ualat and that the duration of the contract
already expired. That there was nothing in the lease contract agreement that the intention of the parties
was to enter into a contract of tenancy. That the Judge does not have any interest or motive upon the
subject of the case. Ualat’s to pay subsidiary is unmerited. And from the founded facts, respondent Judge
may not be faulted when he said that he had jurisdiction over the case and then proceeded to decide on
its merits. However, respondent should have exercised prudence and caution considering the allegation of
tenancy by the defendant Ualat and his insistence that the Court has no jurisdiction by setting the case for
hearing and as.
However, the Court Administrator disagrees and contends that Judge Ramos should have acted more
prudent in his decision. Reasoning that: In a Memorandum addressed to the Chief Justice dated July 19,
1996, the Court Administrator disagreed with Judge Eduartes recommendation to dismiss the case,
reasoning that the mere fact that respondent lacks prior knowledge or notice of the previous case before
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and its resolution of July 23, 1990 does not entirely
absolved (sic) him of any administrative liability. It should be noted that in the civil case for Illegal Detainer
with Damages pending before him, the separate affidavits of herein complainants contained allegation of
landlord-tenant relationship and this information could have cautioned respondent in taking cognizance of
the case at once. Prudence dictate (sic) that the proper thing to do under the circumstances is to refer first
the case to the DAR for certification to determine the existence of the agricultural tenancy relationship in
accordance with existing agrarian laws. His act of precipitately acting on the case without coursing the latter
to the DAR has put into question his real motive especially so that his personal interest on the lot is what is
concerned in this case.

ISSUE: whether or not Respondent Judge is not negligent and the complaint against him be dismissed?

No, the mere fact that respondent lacks prior knowledge of the previous case before the DAR does not
entirely absolve him of admin liability. The Respondent should have referred the case into the DAR based
on the obvious facts that the issue involve is an Agrarian disputes despite the allegations of stated on the
complaints of the case upon him.

Prudence dictate, that the proper thing to do under the circumstances is to refer first the case to the DAR
for certification to determine the existence of the agricultural tenancy relationship in accordance with
existing agrarian laws. His act of precipitately acting on the case without coursing the latter to the DAR has
put into question his real motive especially so that his personal interest on the lot is what is concerned in
this case.”
Respondent has violated PD 316 and PD 1038 which gives jurisdiction to DAR. It is mandatory for the trial
court to refer the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative for a
preliminary determination of the relationship between the contending parties if it is a case of ejectment or
attempt to harass or remove a tenant in agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn. Even without
a motion, the trial court may motu propio order such referral.

Based on the facts it is obvious that it was an agrarian case. His failure to refer the case to DAR despite the
2 PDs cannot be justified. It is a pressing responsibility of judges to keep abreast with the law and changes
therein, as well as with the latest decisions of this Court. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to
know, excuses no one -- certainly not judges. When the law is so elementary, it constitutes gross ignorance
of the law.