GSIS v. Hon. Vicente A.

Pacquing
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1831, Feb. 2, 2007
Corona, J.

Facts: Bengson Commercial Building, Inc. (Bengson) borrowed P4,250,000 from

GSIS and secured by real & chattel mortgages. Bengson defaulted in paying the
amortizations so GSIS extrajudicially foreclosed the same. Bengson then filed an
action to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure in the RTC San Fernando, La Union
in 1977 to which it was given a favorable decision. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
decision on appeal and the same became final and executor on Feb. 10, 1988.
GSIS failed to return the foreclosed properties so Judge Pacquing, then new
presiding judge, ordered the former to pay Bengson the equivalent value of the
foreclosed properties along with the costs of suit amounting to P31 million. An
alias writ of execution was later issued by Pacquing, resulting in the levy of GSIS’
shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation worth P6.2 million. GSIS moved to
quash the writ of execution on the ground that its funds and properties were
exempt from garnishment, levy and execution under Sec. 39, RA 8291.

GSIS then filed several cases, including the present administrative complaint
against Pacquing and Atty. Mario Anacleto Bañez for ignorance of the law, bias
and partiality, and for violation of RA 8291. The case was referred to the OCA but
no records were found to support GSIS’ accusations.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Pacquing was liable for ignorance of the law

Held: No. For a judge to be administratively liable for ignorance of the law, the
acts complained of must be gross or patent. To constitute gross ignorance of the
law, such acts must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but
also motivated by bad faith, fraud, malice or dishonesty. Judge Pacquing’s acts
were neither tainted with bad faith or malice, nor was he biased or partial. In the
exercise of his judicial discretion, respondent judge believed that the issuance of
the alias writ had become forthwith a matter of right following the finality of said
order.