The First Division of the Supreme Court has found Bacolod Regional Trial Court Judge Anastacio Rufon guilty of gross ignorance of the law and fined him P10,000 for canceling a notice of embargo without proper notification.

The SC First Division, in its decision promulgated June 25 and posted on its website yesterday, also warned Rufon that a repetition of his offense would be dealt with more severely.

The SC was acting on a Jan. 3, 2003, complaint filed by lawyer Rex G. Rico against Rufon. Rico said he was the counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 32482 entitled "Dos Amigos Branch IV, Teodoro Ko and Carmelina B. Suplido vs. Rachel J. Akol" pending before RTC, Branch 155, Pasig City.

In the decision dated April 26, 1983, the Pasig court decided in favor of the plaintiffs, he said. Defendant Rachel Akol appealed the case but the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Some of the properties in the name of Claudio Akol as spouse of Rachel Akol which were located in Bacolod City were thereafter levied in execution by the Bacolod City Sheriff who annotated a "Notice of Embargo" dated May 16, 1989 on the TCTs, he said.

Rufon, in an order dated Oct. 27, 2000, ordered the cancellation of the Notice of Embargo on the ground of prescription.

He subsequently issued another order dated March 21, 2001 directing the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City to comply with his October 27, 2000 Order by canceling the Notice of Embargo on the TCTs. On April 25, 2001, the Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 51, Bacolod City issued a certification that the court Order dated March 21, 2001 had become the final and executory, Rico said.

Rico claimed that Rufon exhibited gross ignorance of the law and incompetence when he failed to notify Dos Amigos Branch IV, Teodoro Ko and Carmelina Suplido on the Oct. 27, 2000 hearing on the petition for Cancellation of Notice of Embargo; and issued an Order dated October 27, 2000 in the nature of a judgment without adequate legal and factual basis.

After considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, the SC said it finds that the allegations of gross ignorance of the law are substantiated by the evidence.

Rufon should have caused actual service of notice to the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 32482, the SC said.

In his order dated Sept.13, 2000, Rufon merely required posting in three conspicuous public places for three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing. This is not the notice required in an action in personam, the SC said.

Since the plaintiffs Dos Amigos, et al. were not notified, they were deprived of the opportunity to be heard during the hearing scheduled on Oct. 27, 2000, it added.

The SC also said that Rufon also exhibited gross ignorance of the law when he failed to require the parties to present evidence to prove or disprove prescription as a defense at the October 27, 2000 hearing on the Petition for Cancellation of Notice of Embargo, and immediately issued an order.

The judge did not require evidence to show that prescription had set in, the SC added.

The decision was penned by Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna and concurred in by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, and Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato Corona and Cancio Garcia.*

back to top