Punchline
Hoodlum judge’s incompetence exposed
By Ermin Garcia Jr.
JUST when I thought I’ve finally seen the end of the scandalous account of the “copy-paste” decision-making process of our notorious hoodlum judge after that obnoxious and illogical preliminary injunction issued in the case of a farmer-landowner vs. a landgrabbing squatter, a new surprise and totally unexpected twist in the case surfaced last week.
To those who are learning about our shameless hoodlum judge for the first time, here’s a brief background. We have a lazy, corrupt regional trial court judge in Pangasinan who has no qualms issuing court orders with no legal basis, always ready to copy and adopt a draft order prepared by either the plaintiff’s or defendant’s lawyer (obviously whoever provides the right motivation).
Here’s the case: The plaintiff filed a petition for “Recovery of Possession and Recovery with Prayer fore a Writ of Preliminary Injunction” on December 8, 2010, to prevent the defendant-squatter from occupying any part of the farmland being administered by the plaintiff. After almost 6 years of waiting, our hoodlum judge decided to issue the preliminary injunction (yes, after six years). Read on! Then the ‘copy-paste’ judge awarded three hectares of the farmland to the defendant (with the warning to desist from further expanding its occupied farm lots)! Instead of granting the plaintiff the temporary protection prayed for – to prevent the defendant from occupying any part of the far- the hoodlum judge did the opposite, and awarded a big portion of the farmland without any attempt at justifying the decision.
And, there simply could have been no justification because the defendant was never listed as a registered legitimate tenant of the plaintiff in the municipal agrarian office in Sta. Barbara to deserve even one square meter of farmland under a leasehold agreement as required by law. This fact was officially transmitted by the Sta. Barbara Agrarian Office to the court. And, adding insult to injury, the hoodlum judge did not stop there! This arrogant judge did not even dare order the defendant to post a bond or set a compensation for the use of the farmland (which that is practically one-half of the farmland owned by the plaintiff)!
So the plaintiff was understandably incredulous. She wondered if the lazy bespectacled judge has poor eyesight to misread the petition for the preliminary injunction, that it was the plaintiff , not the defendant, who filed the petition.
* * * * *
Now here’s the new totally unexpected twist that deserves a line in Ripley’s “Believe it or Not”.
After this column exposed the racketeering activities of the hoodlum judge two weeks ago, the plaintiff received her copy of the “Motion For Reconsideration and For Quashal of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction” filed by the lawyer of the defendant last week! Yes! A motion to quash!
You can say “Duh” again and again, because it was the kind of motion that logically would have been filed by the plaintiff, but it was filed by the defendant! After being awarded 3 hectares of farmland without any obligation, the defendant wants the long overdue preliminary injunction quashed!! (Was it possible that the Holy Spirit finally succeeded in pricking the conscience of both the defendant’s lawyer and the ignorant judge after they were exposed in this column? The plaintiff was wont to ask but dared not).
Ah, but as the indefatigable Sherlock Homes told Watson: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!”
* * * * *
So what could be the motive for the surprise filing of the motion to quash by the defendant, he who was the beneficiary of the disjointed injunction that made a mockery of the system? Was it the intention of the defendant’s lawyer to prove that there was no collusion between him and our hoodlum judge, that the defendant’s lawyer was not party to the racketeering of the lazy judge?
The main arguments presented by the defendant’s lawyer perhaps should be telling enough. He argued 1). That the total area granted the defendant was based solely on the unilateral drawing or sketch submitted by the plaintiff; 2). That the sketch was not verified nor signed by a reputable and licensed surveyor and therefore, a mere hearsay. 3). That the matter of area could have been threshed out correctly had there been an exclusive hearing on the application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction; 4) That the defendant is willing to have an ocular inspection of the questioned lots being attributed to the defendant. 5) The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court did not reflect the actual area allegedly being attributed to defendant. On reading these, I thought for a minute that the defendant’s lawyer had decided to represent the plaintiff without the latter knowing!
In sum, the defendant’s lawyer questioned the process by which the hoodlum judge proceeded to award to his client 3 hectares of land, free of charge! Go, figure that! In effect, the defendant was telling the hoodlum judge – “You are incompetent for awarding me 3 hectares of somebody’s land without justification!” How’s that for jurisprudence!
Well, at least the plaintiff and the defendant appear to agree on one thing: That the hoodlum judge is both ignorant and incompetent no matter how one interprets the ruling that favors the defendant.
I’m certain the Supreme Court Administrator will soon determine that for himself, too!
* * * * *
Now comes the next question for our hoodlum judge: Will the defendant’s motion to quash wait for another 5 years before ruling like the judge did to the plaintiff’s petition for preliminary injunction? Or will the shameless judge issue a ruling posthaste (make that copy-paste) based on the draft prepared again by the defendant’s lawyer no matter how ridiculous it may already appear?
So, place your bets! I say, the hoodlum judge, being devoid of any capability to discern what is right and wrong, will again follow the lead of the defendant’s lawyer, granting the defendant’s motion, whatever the reason and logic.
As the Duterte-Cayetano tandem tells us, the country is in serious turmoil and disarray, thanks to the continued presence of the likes of our hoodlum judge making a mockery of our judicial system!
* * * * *
ANOTHER ICON LOST. Last week, a dear friend and well-respected restaurateur and entrepreneur, Julita H. Gutierrez, was called to rest by our Creator. A very apt description of how she affected the Baby Boomers of the 70s, is a posting by Dagupeño Rex Catubig. With his permission, below was what he posted in his Facebook account about her:
“Farewell Atchi Juling Gutierrez: She was a trailblazing restaurateur–forever synonymous with JG’s Calesa and ox tongue in creamy mushroom sauce. In the mid 60’s, when Dagupan was already fast asleep by 7pm and downtown was all quiet, Atchi Juling welcomed us to her narrow cafe where we staged a couple of plays on two separate nights during our college summer vacation. It was our way of enlivening the night life in the soporific city and laying the groundwork for a cultural awakening. It was a pioneering movement and Atchi Juling was with us at the forefront. Thank you for allowing us the chance to kindle the sparks of a cultural resurgence.”
She was laid to rest the Eternal Garden on March 23. The PUNCH sincerely condoles with the Gutierrez family.
* * * * *
Happy Easter to our loyal PUNCH readers and advertisers! May your blessings be double-fold in service to the glory of our risen Jesus Christ.
(For your comments and reactions, please email to: punch.sunday@gmail.com)
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
