View full case

PROSECUTOR LEO C. TABAO v. JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN

FACTS:

The administrative complaint filed by Atty. Leo C. Tabao against Judge Frisco T. Lilagan and Sheriff IV Leonardo V. Aguilar alleges gross ignorance of the law, gross abuse of judicial authority, willful disobedience to settled jurisprudence, gross irregularity in the performance of official duties, giving unwarranted benefits to a private individual, violation of Section 1(b) and (c) of P.D. No. 1829, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The complaint stemmed from the seizure and impounding of a watercraft, the M/L Hadija, and its cargo of tanbark due to irregular and incomplete accompanying documents. A criminal complaint was filed against the captain and crew of the M/L Hadija, along with several DENR officers. The seized items were placed under the possession of the DENR pending preliminary investigation. However, the consignee of the cargo, Robert Hernandez, filed a case for replevin seeking the recovery of the items. Judge Lilagan handled the case and issued a writ of replevin, instructing Sheriff Aguilar to take possession of the seized items and deliver them to Hernandez. Sheriff Aguilar served the writ to the Philippine Coast Guard, but the vessel left the port of Tacloban City. Complainant alleges that the whereabouts of the vessel and its crew remain unknown. Sheriff Aguilar is also accused of releasing the seized tanbark to Hernandez within the five-day period stipulated in the writ, which could effectively alter, suppress, conceal, or destroy evidence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

  2. Whether or not the respondent sheriff should be held liable for releasing the tanbark without proper authority.

  3. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the replevin suit filed by the plaintiff seeking to recover the shipment from the DENR.

  4. Whether or not the respondent judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law, while the charges against the respondent sheriff are dismissed for lack of merit.

  2. The court does not have jurisdiction over the replevin suit filed by the plaintiff seeking to recover the shipment from the DENR. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction dictates that courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence. Furthermore, the plaintiff had not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him. Therefore, the replevin suit should have been dismissed outright.

  3. The respondent judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law. By taking cognizance of the replevin suit, he encroached into the domain of the administrative agency's prerogative. This act falls short of the competence, integrity, and independence expected of judges, and constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • It is the judge's duty to be aware of all relevant information pertaining to a case and to exercise prudence in making decisions. (Gross Ignorance of the Law)

  • The sheriff has a ministerial duty to serve the writ of replevin. (Ministerial Duty)

  • The custody of items subject to a writ of replevin lies with the court and can only be disposed of through a court order. (Custody of Seized Items)

  • The seizure of items by a government agency and the commencement of administrative proceedings should have alerted the judge to the possibility that the items were no longer within the jurisdiction of the court. (Awareness of Custody of Seized Items)

  • The enforcement of forestry laws falls within the primary and special responsibilities of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the court should not intrude into matters within the jurisdiction of the DENR.

  • The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.

  • Judges are expected to keep abreast of all laws and prevailing jurisprudence, and failure to do so constitutes gross ignorance of the law.