A.M. No. 222-MJ June 30, 1975
SANTIAGO PALADIN,
complainant,
vs.
ARTURO V. MIRALLES as Municipal Judge of Biliran, Leyte, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
Complainant Santiago Paladin charges Municipal Judge Arturo V. Miralles of Biliran, Leyte, with grave abuse of authority and acts unbecoming of a public official in that the latter had allegedly extended a loan to the former's brother named Amado Paladin sometime in 1970, and accepted as security for the payment thereof an agricultural land belonging to said complainant, and that respondent did so by taking advantage of his profession as a lawyer and as Municipal Judge, without even bothering to ascertain from said complainant whether his brother's act was with complainant's conformity, but instead deliberately and deceitfully made it appear that complainant participated in the transaction by signing the deed of assignment when in truth and in fact he did not do so; thereby enabling respondent Judge to enter upon the land in question and appropriate the fruits thereof for his own personal gain.
The respondent denied the charges. The records reveal that the property in question was inherited from complainant's parents. The heirs agreed to transfer title to the property, as in fact they did, to complainant's name as sole owner, only for the purpose of enabling him to obtain a loan from the DBP, without prejudice, however, to the rights and interests of his brothers and sisters. By this means, complainant succeeded in using the property as a collateral for a loan of P2,000.00. However, for his failure to repay the loan, a sheriff's certificate of sale was issued. On July 10, 1970, the complainant executed a "waiver", whereby he and his wife renounced and waived their right to redeem and repurchase the parcel of land they had mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines, which right was only up to August 9, 1970, in favor of complainant's brother Amado Paladin who in turn exercised the right waived in his favor and became the owner of the said parcel of land. As owner thereof, he sold the same with right of repurchase to the herein respondent. The latter, as vendee a retro, became the owner of the property sold a retro pending the repurchase thereof. It results therefore that when respondent took possession of the land in question, utilized it, and enjoyed the fruits thereof, he did so in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant complaint is hereby dismissed.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Aquino, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
