[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Judicial Misconduct in Property Dispute

Judge Patricio threatened and intimidated a sheriff attempting to implement a writ of execution over disputed property, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. While an owner can use reasonable force to protect property from aggressors under Article 429, the sheriff could not be considered an aggressor as he was simply performing his official duty. The judge improperly took the law into his own hands and failed to respect legal processes. The court held that the doctrine of self-help did not apply in this case.

Uploaded by

Shimi Fortuna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Judicial Misconduct in Property Dispute

Judge Patricio threatened and intimidated a sheriff attempting to implement a writ of execution over disputed property, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. While an owner can use reasonable force to protect property from aggressors under Article 429, the sheriff could not be considered an aggressor as he was simply performing his official duty. The judge improperly took the law into his own hands and failed to respect legal processes. The court held that the doctrine of self-help did not apply in this case.

Uploaded by

Shimi Fortuna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Madeline Tan-Yap vs. Hon.

Hannibal Patrick
A.M. MTJ-19-1925, 3 June 2019

Doctrine: The doctrine of “self-help” under Art 429 of the Civil Code applies only when the
person, who the owner of the property uses the right of force against (for protection of his
property), is really considered as an “aggressor”.

FACTS
The petitioner’s (Madeline Tan-Yap) father and respondent’s (Judge Patricio) father-in-law entered
into a Compromise Agreement which was approved by the RTC. Pursuant to the Compromise
Agreement, a survey over the subject properties was conducted and a Writ of Execution, together
with a Demand for Compliance/Delivery of Possession was served. Sheriff IV Romeo C. Alvarez,
Jr., together with some officers, went to the premises of the subject lots to implement the writ of
execution. However they were met by respondent Judge Patricio, who was not pleased with the
outcome of the survey. He suggested to Sheriff Alvarez and his men that if they were to push
through with the implementation of the writ of execution, “something untoward may happen.” In
verbatim: “Kung padayonon nyo, basi maghinagamo.” Sheriff Alvarez would later on mention in his
report that upon their confrontation, motorcycle-riding men were already encircling the premises.
Because of these instances, Sheriff Alvarez and his men felt that their security was at risk,
therefore leaving them with no choice but to leave the place.

Given these facts, the petitioner contended that Judge Patricio violated the New Code of Judicial
Conduct.

Respondent Judge Patricio denied the allegations and claimed that the intended fencing to be
implemented would prejudice him and his wife insofar as their lot is concerned. He used the
defense under Article 429 of the Civil Code, which provides that “the owner or lawful possessor of
a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.”

ISSUE
Whether or not Article 429 or the Doctrine of “Self-Help” applies in this case.

RULING
No. Article 429 or the Doctrine of “Self-Help” does not apply.

HOLDING
Respondent Judge Patricio’s reliance on Article 429 of the Civil Code is bereft of merit. The
doctrine of “self-help” under Art 429 of the Civil Code applies only when the person, who the
owner of the property uses the right of force against (for protection of his property), is really
considered as an “aggressor”. In the present case, Sheriff Alvarez cannot be considered as an
aggressor, because as an officer of the court, he was simply carrying out, under authority, his
official duty to implement the writ of execution over the subject lots. The OCA correctly ruled that
respondent judge effectively took the law into his own hands, by using threats and intimidation
which effectively prevented and stopped Sheriff Alvarez and his men in implementing the writ of
execution. Moreover, he failed to accord due respect to legal processes. These actions, as noted
by the Court, were considered to be unbecoming of a judge.

You might also like