7/24/2019 Cabili vs Balindong

1/3

Caabili vs Balindong

Facts:

-Complainant Atty. Tomas Ong Cabili (Atty. Cabili) was counsel of the Heirs

of Jesus Leesma in the latter!s action for amages against the "inanao#tate $ni%ersity ("#$) an others arising from the eath of the late Jesus

Leesma in Ci%il Case &'-* of the +egional Trial Court (+TC) of ,ligan

City ranch '.

-The +TC renere /ugmentagainst the efenants incluing "#$

orering them to pay amages to the Heirs. On appealthe Court of

Appeals (CA) a0rme the +TC ecisionwhich became 1nal an e2ecutory.

- "arch ' &&3 the +TC ranch ' cause the issuance of a writ of

e2ecution against the efenants. The O0ce of the #olicitor 4eneral(O#4) belately 1le an opposition to the issuance of the writ resulting in

its enial on the groun of mootness of the motion.

- "eantime the #heri5 of ranch ' #heri5 4erar 6eter 4a/e ser%e a

notice of garnishment on "#$s funs with the Lan an7 of the

6hilippines "arawi City ranch by reason of "#$s failure to obey the writ.

- On April 8 &&3 to pre%ent sei9ure of its Lan an7 eposits that it

neee for operations "#$ 1le a special ci%il action of prohibition

an mandamuswith application for the issuance of a temporary

restraining orer (T+O) an subse:uently a preliminary in/unction before

the +TC ranch ; presie o%er by responent acting presiing /uge

Juge +asa 4. alinong against Lan an7 an #heri5 4a/e

- ,n its petition "#$ a%erre that it is a state uni%ersity fune by

appropriations law enacte by Congress< that espite O#4 opposition to

the issuance of a writ of e2ecution against it such writ was issue an

#heri5 4a/e garnishe upon "#$s eposits with Lan an7 who in turn

ga%e notice to "#$ that it was putting on hol the sum of6='8;3.3&on its eposit that this money being go%ernment funs #heri5 4a/e was

e2ecuting on the same in %iolation of Commission on Auit (COA) Circular

&&8-&& ate July >8 &&8 an #C Aministrati%e Circular 8&-&&&< an

that unless restraine the garnishment of go%ernment fun woul isrupt

"#$s operations.

-After ue hearing Juge alinong issue a T+O en/oining Lan an7

an #heri5 4a/e from proceeing with the garnishment of the "#$ eposit

with Lan an7. To etermine whether the issuance of a writ ofpreliminary in/unction was warrante Juge alinong hear the parties

7/24/2019 Cabili vs Balindong

2/3

an re:uire them to submit memorana. ,nstea of submitting a

memoranum #heri5 4a/e 1le a motion to ismiss on the groun that

+TC ranch ; ha no /urisiction to issue an in/unction orer against

another court of e:ual ran7. ?ining merit on April ; &&3 Juge

alinong issue an Orer ismissing the petition.- ?or ha%ing initially ta7en cogni9ance of the case an issuing a T+O Atty.

Cabili 1le the present aministrati%e action Juge alinong for gross

ignorance of the law gra%e abuse of authority abuse of iscretion an@or

gra%e misconuct pre/uicial to the interest of the /uicial ser%ice. The

O0ce of the Court Aministrator (OCA) foun groun to hol Juge

alinong guilty of gross ignorance of the law for interfering with the

/ugment of a co-e:ual court. ,t recommene the imposition of a 1ne

of 6*&&&&.&& on Juge alinong with a stern warning against a future

o5ense.

Issue:

OB not Juge alinong of +TC ranch ; acte with gross ignorance of

the law when he issue the T+O pening hearing on the application for

preliminary in/unction that en/oine #heri5 4a/e from garnishing "#$s

Congress-appropriate operating funs for the satisfaction of the

/ugment of +TC ranch ' in e5ect %iolating the Doctrine of Juicial

#tability or Bon-,nterference

Ruling:

-The octrine of /uicial stability or non-interference in the regular orers

or /ugments of a co-e:ual court is an elementary principle in the

aministration of /usticeE Bo court can interfere by in/unction with the

/ugments or orers of another court of concurrent

jurisdictionha%ing the power to grant the relief sought by the

in/unction. The rationale for the rule is foune on the concept of

/urisictionE a court that ac:uires /urisiction o%er the case an reners

/ugment therein has /urisiction o%er its /ugment to the exclusion of

all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all itsincidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of

ministerial ocers acting in connection with this judgment.

-here an e2ecution orer has been issue is consiere as still

pending so that all the proceeings on the e2ecution are still

proceeings in the suit. A court which issue a writ of e2ecution has the

inherent power for the a%ancement of /ustice to correct errors of its

ministerial o0cers an to control its own processes. To hol otherwise

woul be to i%ie the /urisiction of the appropriate forum in the

7/24/2019 Cabili vs Balindong

3/3

resolution of incients arising in e2ecution proceeings. #plitting of

/urisiction is obno2ious to the orerly aministration of /ustice.

- Jurispruence shows that a %iolation of this rule warrants the imposition

of aministrati%e sanctions.

- ,f #heri5 4a/e committe any irregularity or e2ceee his authority in the

enforcement of the writ the proper recourse for "#$ was to 1le a motion

with or an application for relief from the same court which issue the

ecision not from any other court or to ele%ate the matter to the CA on a

petition for certiorari. ,n this case "#$ 1le the proper motion with the

,ligan City +TC (the issuing court) but upon enial proceee to see7

recourse through another co-e:ual court presie o%er by the responent

Juge.

- ,t is not a %iable legal position to claim that a T+O against a writ of

e2ecution is issue against an erring sheri5 not against the issuing Juge.

A T+O en/oining the enforceability of a writ aresses the writ itself not

merely the e2ecuting sheri5. The uty of a sheri5 in enforcing writs is

ministerial an not iscretionary.