Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > September 1975 Decisions > Adm. Case No. 216-CFI September 30, 1975 - NONATO BARROSO v. ANDRES P. ARCHE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[Adm. Case No. 216-CFI. September 30, 1975.]

NONATO BARROSO, Complainant, v. DISTRICT JUDGE ANDRES P. ARCHE, CFI, Branch II, Borongan, Eastern Samar, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent judge dismissed complainant’s personal case against the Government Service Insurance System claiming underpayment of his retirement benefits. Complainant appealed from the adverse decision, and thereafter filed an administrative complainant charging the respondent with dishonesty, oppression, incompetence, inefficiency and neglect of duty. The Investigation Justice, in his report, noted that all the issues raised by the complainant in his administrative case are the very errors assigned by him in the appeal earlier filed with the Court of Appeals and that a ruling on then correctness of complainant’s assertions cannot be made because the case is still sub judice. He also reported that no evidence of significance was adduced during the investigation to show bias or malice in respondent in his decision that the claim that complainant’s case was decided after a lapse of 90 days was without factual basis; and concluded that the complaint was premature and prima facie unmeritorious.

The Supreme Court ruled that aside from being premature, the filing of the complaint is highly improper, if not malicious and intended merely to harass respondent judge.

Complaint dismissed.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGES; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES; MUST BE FILED BY THE PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE JUDGMENT AFTER THE OUTCOME OF HIS APPEAL. — Absent any manifest abuse, malice, oppression or wrongful conduct, a losing party in a litigation who duly files an appeal from the adverse decision to the higher courts must await the final outcome of his appeal, so that it may then be properly determined whether an administrative complaint may lie against the trial judge.

2. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL THEREOF WHERE THE SAME IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED MALICIOUSLY WITH INTENT TO HARASS RESPONDENT JUDGE; INSTANT CASE. — A judge, who in deciding a case for recovery of retirement benefits, merely upholds the interpretation and standard of computation applied by the GSIS as the agency of the government charged with the implementation of retirement laws, cannot be held administratively liable thereof.

3. ID.; ID.; ALWAYS THE REMEDY OF A LITIGANT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A DECISION. — If a litigant disagrees with a judge’s ruling in the case, his remedy lies not in filing before the Supreme Court an administrative complaint but to point out the errors on appeal from the decision in the same judicial forum, for to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable.


D E C I S I O N


TEEHANKEE, J.:


This Administrative Complaint filed on March 13, 1973 with the President of the Philippines by Complainant Nonato Barroso (s retired former stenographer in respondent judge’s court) against respondent Judge Andres P. Arche of the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Borongan, Eastern Samar was referred in due course through the Secretary of Justice to the Court on May 24, 1973.

The case was referred, after receipt of respondent’s Comments, to Justice Sixto Domondon of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.

The investigating Justice has filed his report of investigation dated July 24, 1975, with a notation that he intentionally did not submit the report earlier because the facts and issues raised in the complaint and arising from complainant’s dissatisfaction with the adverse decision rendered by respondent judge in complainant’s personal case 1 against the Government Service Insurance System claiming underpayment of his retirement benefits, etc. "are squarely raised on appeal in CA-G.R. No. 50346-R" (complainant’s appeal from the said adverse decision to the Court of Appeals) and he wanted to wait if possible for the termination of the appeal before releasing his findings, but finally decided not to wait anymore, since at the time of submittal of his report "the said appeal is still unassigned" and "not yet submitted for decision."cralaw virtua1aw library

As found by the investigating Justice, the complaint is an aftermath of respondent judge’s adverse decision of January 4, 1972 dismissing plaintiff as complaint against the GSIS wherein he sought to recover the total sum of P38,874.00 by way of retirement benefits under his own basis of computation rather than the sum of P22,590.00 actually paid him by the GSIS under the standard basis of computation. For having upheld the standard applied by the GSIS rather than his own interpretation of the retirement law whereby he would claim a right to receive a larger amount, complainant charged respondent judge with dishonesty, oppression, incompetence and inefficiency.

All the issues raised by complainant in his administrative complaint are the very errors assigned by complainant in the appeal earlier filed by him on January 31, 1973 from respondent judge’s adverse decision, so much so that the Investigating Justice correctly submitted in his report that "we cannot rule on the correctness of complainant’s assertions" because of the case being sub judice on appeal. Withal, Justice Domondon reported that "Suffice it to state that no evidence of significance was adduced during the investigation to show bias or malice in respondent judge in his decision" 2; and that the questions deductions from complainant’s retirement benefits made by the GSIS "were indeed approved by [respondent judge] in his decision but only after an apparently thorough appreciation of the evidence, as the decision clearly shows" 3 but here again, the investigating Justice refrained from ruling on whether respondent judge erred in his appreciation of the evidence because this is precisely one of the errors assigned by complainant in his pending appeal.

Complainant’s other charge of neglect of duty based on his claim that his case was declined only after a lapse of ninety (90) days was found by Justice Domondon to be without factual basis, as per the clerk of court’s certification (Exh. 3) showing that "was filed on August 28, 1970, submitted for decision on October 7, 1971 as shown by Exhibit ‘1’, and was decided on January 4, 1972." 4

The Court finds in order the investigating Justice’s conclusion that "On the whole, (he) finds the administrative complaint premature and prima facie unmeritorious." 5

The Court rules that aside from being premature, complainant’s filing of the administrative complaint raising exactly the same issues against respondent judge’s adverse decision (this time as charges of dishonesty, oppression, incompetence and inefficiency) that he has assigned as errors in the appeal from the very game decision filed by him in the Court of Appeals (which is pending decision) is highly improper, if not malicious and intended merely to harass respondent judge.

Absent any manifest abuse, malice oppression or wrongful conduct, a losing party in a litigation who duly files an appeal from the adverse decision to the higher courts must await the final outcome of his appeal, so that it may then be properly determined whether an administrative complaint may lie against the trial judge. For here, as found by the investigator, there has not been shown any malice or other wrongful conduct on the part of respondent judge in rendering his adverse decision - so that even if the appellate court by final judgment were to uphold complainant’s appeal and find respondent judge’s conclusions in his decision to be erroneous, respondent cannot be held administratively liable therefor, particularly since he was merely upholding the interpretation and standard of computation applied by the GSIS as the government agency charged with the implementation of the retirement laws.

As the now Chief Justice indicated in Dizon v. De Borja, 6 if a litigant disagrees with a judge’s rulings in the case, his remedy lies not in filing before this Court an administrative complaint but "to point out the errors on appeal from the decision" in the same judicial forum, for "To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Aquino and Martin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Civil Case No. 1496 for sum of money of Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar, entitled "Nonato Barroso, plaintiff v. GSIS, Defendant."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Report, page 4.

3. Idem, page 6.

4. Idem, p. 7.

5. Idem, page 8.

6. 37 SCRA 46, 52 (1971).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-176 September 4, 1975 - COURT OF APPEALS v. JESUS C. BANAWA

  • G.R. No. L-28090 September 4, 1975 - CLEMENTE DEQUITO v. VICTORIA LLAMAS

  • G.R. No. L-33987 September 4, 1975 - LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. LIBERTY COTTON MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38059 September 4, 1975 - JOSE QUI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-294 September 5, 1975 - MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF CASIGURAN, QUEZON v. ANTONIO VALENCIA

  • A.M. No. 749-CFI September 5, 1975 - JUANA SAN PEDRO, ET AL. v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21734 September 5, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-21971 September 5, 1975 - CORNELIO BALMACEDA v. COROMINAS & COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29375 September 5, 1975 - EARNSHAWS DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. DOMINGO SORTIJAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36083 September 5, 1975 - SPS. RAMON DOROMAL, SR., AND ROSARIO SALAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41036 September 5, 1975 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PURIFICACION VDA. DE VILLARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41162 September 5, 1975 - JAMES JUDITH, ET AL. v. MELCHOR ABRAGAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 292-MJ September 9, 1975 - RODOLFO GAMARA, ET AL. v. GEMINIANO B. ALMEDA

  • A.M. No. P-170 September 10, 1975 - JOSE P. GENIO v. PEDRO R. ABONALES

  • G.R. No. L-37684 September 10, 1975 - ARABAY, INC. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

  • G.R. No. L-22447 September 12, 1975 - THOMSON SHIRTS FACTORY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-31241 September 12, 1975 - JESUS GALANO, ET AL. v. NEMESIO ROXAS

  • G.R. No. L-38228 September 12, 1975 - MARCIANO YACAPIN v. CFI OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38690 September 12, 1975 - CLEMENTE CELESTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40134 September 12, 1975 - IN RE: SATURNINO LASAM, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31788 & L-31792 September 15, 1975 - ANTONIO H. NOBLEJAS v. EMILIO V. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37187 September 15, 1975 - ASIATIC INTEGRATED CORPORATION v. FEDERICO ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23050 September 18, 1975 - FEDERICO QUERUBIN v. VICTORIO ALCONCEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35001 September 25, 1975 - JUAN R. ISBERTO v. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39117 September 25, 1975 - E. LIM & SONS MANUFACTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39207 September 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PADIRAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27812 September 26, 1975 - GUADALUPE GAYOS, ET AL. v. SIMEONA GAYOS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-118 September 30, 1975 - HERMINIGILDO CUTAD v. DIONISIO ABAD

  • Adm. Case No. 216-CFI September 30, 1975 - NONATO BARROSO v. ANDRES P. ARCHE

  • A.M. No. 297-MJ September 30, 1975 - AVELINA SERAFIN v. SANTIAGO LINDAYAG

  • G.R. No. L-24100 September 30, 1975 - CECILIO PANALIGAN, ET AL. v. NICOLAS C. ADOLFO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25600 September 30, 1975 - HERMINIO A. ASTORGA v. RICARDO C. PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-25962 September 30, 1975 - MARTIRES ERENO CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27860 & L-27896 September 30, 1975 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. VENICIO ESCOLIN

  • G.R. No. L-29455 September 30, 1975 - REGAL AUTO WORKS, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31083 September 30, 1975 - URSULA FRANCISCO v. JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35644 September 30, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35583 September 30, 1975 - GREGORIO G. PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39126 September 30, 1975 - ONOFRE P. GUEVARA v. SIMEON M. GOPENGCO, ET AL.