ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 126899 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICITO T. BARBOSA

  • G.R. No. 128137 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO HAMTO

  • G.R. No. 131203 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 137473 August 2, 2001 - ESTELITO V. REMOLONA v. CSC

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 August 2, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO P. CABILTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131817 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE L. DOMINGO

  • G.R. Nos. 133791-94 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO SUPNAD

  • G.R. No. 135065 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY CABANGCALA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4982 August 9, 2001 - KATRINA JOAQUIN CARIÑO v. ARTURO DE LOS REYES

  • A.M. No. 01-2-47-RTC August 9, 2001 - RE: JUDGE GUILLERMO L. LOJA,

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365 August 9, 2001 - CESINA EBALLA v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-01-1495 August 9, 2001 - ESMERALDO D. VISITACION v. GREDAM P. EDIZA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506 August 9, 2001 - JOSEFINA MERONTOS Vda. de SAYSON v. OSCAR E. ZERNA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1489 August 9, 2001 - CATALINO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. AMELITA O. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 110740 August 9, 2001 - NDC-GUTHRIE PLANTATIONS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112485 August 9, 2001 - EMILIA MANZANO v. MIGUEL PEREZ SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129209 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESEMIEL MOSQUERRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134565 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. LUDIVINO MIANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138472-73 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 138964 August 9, 2001 - VICENTE RELLOSA, ET AL. v. GONZALO PELLOSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139411 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO TORALBA

  • G.R. No. 139532 August 9, 2001 - REGAL FILMS v. GABRIEL CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. 139665 August 9, 2001 - MA. VILMA S. LABAD v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140347 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO OLITA

  • G.R. No. 142546 August 9, 2001 - ANASTACIO FABELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142838 August 9, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. ANTONIO P. GATMAITAN

  • G.R. No. 143881 August 9, 2001 - DANILO EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO SISTOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143949 August 9, 2001 - ATCI OVERSEAS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144089 August 9, 2001 - CONCORDE HOTEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126480 August 10, 2001 - MARIA TIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129162 August 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY FIGURACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130998 August 10, 2001 - MARUBENI CORP. ET AL. v. FELIX LIRAG

  • G.R. Nos. 137934 & 137936 August 10, 2001 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN M. BITANGA. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143673 August 10, 2001 - CONRADO TUAZON, ET AL. v. ERNESTO GARILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144708 August 10, 2001 - RAFAEL ALBANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146724 August 10, 2001 - GIL TAROJA VILLOTA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136266 August 13, 2001 - EUTIQUIO A. PELIGRINO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1612 August 14, 2001 - MARCO FRANCISCO SEVILLEJA v. ANTONIO N. LAGGUI

  • A.M. No. P-00-1438 August 14, 2001 - JUNN F. FLORES v. ROGER S. CONANAN

  • G.R. No. 135482 August 14, 2001 - ORLANDO SALVADOR v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136192 August 14, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141617 August 14, 2001 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and MERRYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RITA C. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 142276 August 14, 2001 - FLORENTINO GO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142662 August 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY FERRER

  • A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: ATTY. DAVID BRIONES.

  • A.M. RTJ No. 89-403 August 15, 2001 - MOLINTO D. PAGAYAO v. FAUSTO H. IMBING

  • A.M. No. 96-9-332-RTC August 15, 2001 - DIRECTOR, PNP NARCOTICS COMMAND v. JAIME N. SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. P-99-1311 August 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ALBERTO V. GARONG

  • G.R. Nos. 113822-23 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL L. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118492 August 15, 2001 - GREGORIO H. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120468 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE B. LIWANAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128177 August 15, 2001 - ROMAN SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129295 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MORIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129598 August 15, 2001 - PNB MADECOR v. GERARDO C. UY

  • G.R. No. 130360 August 15, 2001 - WILSON ONG CHING KIAN CHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136834 August 15, 2001 - FELIX SENDON, ET AL. v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137271 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. REYNALDO CORRE JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137509 August 15, 2001 - PEVET ADALID FELIZARDO, ET AL v. SIEGFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 137969-71 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RAFAEL SALALIMA

  • G.R. No. 139337 August 15, 2001 - MA. CARMINIA C. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139420 August 15, 2001 - ROBERTO R. SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001 - LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN, ET AL v. LAMBERTO T. CHUA

  • G.R. No. 144813 August 15, 2001 - GOLD LINE TRANSIT v. LUISA RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 147270 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: PETE C. LAGRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1565 August 16, 2001 - FEDERICO S. BERNARDO v. PATERNO G. TIAMSON

  • G.R. No. 119900 August 16, 2001 - SUNNY MOTORS SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121897 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL TEMPLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126200 August 16, 2001 - DEV’T. BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126926 August 16, 2001 - RAMON P. ARON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127543 August 16, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL PIPES, ET AL. v. F. F. CRUZ & CO.

  • G.R. No. 132155 August 16, 2001 - ARAS-ASAN TIMBER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134292 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 136365 August 16, 2001 - ENRIQUE R. CAMACHO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NAT’L. BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136780 August 16, 2001 - JEANETTE D. MOLINO v. SECURITY DINERS INTERNATIONAL CORP.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597 August 20, 2001 - WILSON ANDRES v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 August 20, 2001 - MIGUEL ARGEL v. HERMINIA M. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 110055 August 20, 2001 - ASUNCION SAN JUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111685 August 20, 2001 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131866 August 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS DOCTOLERO

  • G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001 - GUALBERTO CASTRO v. RICARDO GLORIA

  • G.R. No. 132684 August 20, 2001 - HERNANI N. FABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134718 August 20, 2001 - ROMANA INGJUGTIRO v. LEON V. CASALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142401 August 20, 2001 - ANDREW TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137299 August 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO NANAS

  • G.R. No. 138869 August 21, 2001 - DAVID SO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140519 August 21, 2001 - PHIL. RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. THELMA RUPA

  • G.R. No. 130817 August 22, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138403 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY C. ABULENCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 141712-13 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO M. BOHOL

  • G.R. No. 143867 August 22, 2001 - PLDT v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128628 August 23, 2001 - ILDEFONSO SAMALA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133749 August 23, 2001 - HERNANDO R. PEÑALOSA v. SEVERINO C. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 133789 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO P. CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136506 August 23, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137199-230 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE J. ALAY-AY

  • G.R. No. 137842 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO H. CATUBIG

  • G.R. No. 138588 August 23, 2001 - FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DIAZ REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. 138022 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 144142 August 23, 2001 - YOLANDA AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 August 24, 2001 - RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131609 August 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO PUERTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1571 August 28, 2001 - JESUS GUILLAS v. RENATO D. MUÑEZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1645 August 28, 2001 - VICTORINO S. SIANGHIO, JR. v. BIENVENIDO L. REYES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626 August 28, 2001 - JOSELITO D. FRANI v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

  • G.R. Nos. 100633 & 101550 August 28, 2001 - SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114118 August 28, 2001 - SIMEON BORLADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125728 August 28, 2001 - MARIA ALVAREZ VDA. DE DELGADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129960 August 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 131175 August 28, 2001 - JOVITO VALENZUELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133056 August 28, 2001 - FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA v. PUYAT VINYL PRODUCTS

  • G.R. No. 140812 August 28, 2001 - CANDIDO ALFARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143256 August 28, 2001 - RODOLFO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144653 August 28, 2001 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC August 30, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. TERESITA Q. ORBIGO-MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. TULIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119811 August 30, 2001 - SOCORRO S. TORRES, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123980 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CALIMLIM

  • G.R. No. 127905 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO REMUDO

  • G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133113 August 30, 2001 - EDGAR H. ARREZA v. MONTANO M. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 136280 August 30, 2001 - ORCHARD REALTY and DEV’T CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139083 August 30, 2001 - FLORENCIA PARIS v. DIONISIO A. ALFECHE

  • G.R. No. 140229 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY BALMOJA

  • G.R. No. 140995 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO M. REGALA

  • G.R. No. 141128 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORPIANO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 141283 August 30, 2001 - SEGOVIA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. J.L. DUMATOL REALTY

  • G.R. No. 144442 August 30, 2001 - JESUS SALVATIERRA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A. M. No. 00-7-299-RTC August 31, 2001 - REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO. R-1692 RTC BR. 45

  • A.M. No. 00-8-03-SB August 31, 2001 - RE: UNNUMBERED RESOLUTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN RE ACQUISITION OF THREE [3] MOTOR VEHICLES FOR OFFICIAL USE OF JUSTICES

  • A.M. No. P-99-1316 August 31, 2001 - KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. Nos. 132548-49 August 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO MIASCO

  • G.R. No. 141211 August 31, 2001 - CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626   August 28, 2001 - JOSELITO D. FRANI v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626. August 28, 2001.]

    (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-903-RTJ)

    JOSELITO D. FRANI, Complainant, v. JUDGE ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    This is an administrative complaint filed by Joselito D. Frani against Judge Ernesto P. Pagayatan of Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro for "Gross Ignorance of the Law/Serious Misconduct and/or Irregularity in rendering an obviously unjust decision" in relation to his Decision rendered in SP Civil Case No. R-1105 entitled "Lolita Cordovez v. Joselito Frani." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Complainant was the defendant in SP Civil Case No. R-1105 for Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, presided by respondent judge. He alleged that respondent judge rendered a decision in said case without conducting a pre-trial and trial. The decision was allegedly hastily issued after only twenty-nine (29) days from the commencement of the action. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied after only one and a half months from its filing. Complainant claimed that respondent judge was moved by ill will and revenge when he precipitately denied the motion for reconsideration as he was allegedly piqued by the rumor being spread by a friend of the complainant that the court’s Decision in SP Civil Case No. R-1105 was not fair. To support his allegation, complainant cited the remarks of respondent judge during the hearing held on January 26, 1999 on the motion for reconsideration, thus: 1chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "x       x       x

    ATTY. CASTILLO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In so far as this petition for indirect Contempt, Your Honor, since only the testimony of the complaining witness is our evidence to prove the charge we are now resting our case, Your Honor.

    ATTY. VILLAMAR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I would like to mark this motion for joint trial in Civil Case No. R-1106 filed by no other than the defendant Sps. Aladin and Fredicanda Estores, Et Al., who is also the plaintiff in this case, Your Honor, we would like this to be marked as Exh.’I’, Your Honor.

    ATTY. CASTILLO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I have not yet notified the defendant’s counsel, I already made manifestation that I withdraw that pleading so I will just furnish a copy of my manifestation to the defendant’s counsel, Your Honor.

    ATTY. VILLAMAR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Nevertheless, this motion for joint trial is an evidence showing that as far as the plaintiff in this case is concerned they are of the belief that the judgment in Civil Case No. R-1105 is not yet final that is why they were asking . . .

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    They are not bound by the belief of anybody.

    ATTY. VILLAMAR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    It is their belief as far as they are concerned they believe that the decision is not yet final.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    There are people spreading rumor that this court is not rendering judgment fairly.

    ATTY. VILLAMAR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We are not aware of that, Your Honor, I will look into that matter, Your Honor.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Spreading rumor that the decision of this court is not fair. I am now denying your motion for reconsideration and raise that to the higher court if you want.

    ATTY. VILLAMAR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I will look into that matter, Your Honor.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    As of today your motion is denied, submitted for resolution.

    ORDER. After the termination of the testimony of the complaining witness, Lolita Gordovez, counsel for the plaintiff rests its case.

    SO ORDERED.

    San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, January 26, 1998." 2

    Respondent judge denied the charges against him. While he admitted that no pre-trial was held in connection with SP Civil Case No. R-1105, he explained that a pre-trial was not necessary in said case because the action was not an ordinary suit but a "special civil action for injunction with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order." He nonetheless averred that several hearings were held on various dates in November 1998 regarding the merits of the case. Hence, the parties were given an opportunity to present their respective evidence before a Decision was handed down on December 8, 1998. Furthermore, respondent judge said that there was nothing irregular about the fact that the case was decided after only twenty-nine (29) days from its commencement. He said that the nature of the action necessitated prompt action on his part, thus he exerted effort to resolve the case as expeditiously as he could. 3

    On March 12, 2001, we referred the administrative complaint to Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. 4

    Justice Guerrero submitted his Report 5 dated July 1, 2001 with the following findings and recommendation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Findings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A. Gross Ignorance of the Law

    To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption. For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but, most importantly, it must also be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other like motive.

    While complainant has explained in his memorandum, synthesized earlier, why the proceedings held and the decision rendered in Civil Case No. R-1105 should make respondent culpable of gross ignorance of the law, miserably missing in his endeavor are citations of excerpts in the recorded proceedings leading to the decision and portions of the decision itself indicating that respondent was induced by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, corruption, hatred and other like motive in the discharge of his judicial power. The failure is understandable: There really were no such episodes in the proceedings nor were there any in the decision itself. Of course, respondent could have erred in his finding of facts and conclusion of law. This circumstance is not enough. There must be persuasive proof that the error was tainted with the aforementioned qualifying circumstances.

    x       x       x


    B. Serious Misconduct and/or Irregularity in Rendering an Obviously Unjust Decision

    As a ground for disciplinary action against a judge, for serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or were in persistent disregard of all well-known legal rules.

    In his memorandum, as in the evidence in the administrative investigation, complainant has not imputed corruption to respondent nor has he demonstrated by convincing proof that respondent consciously meant to violate the law or persisted to disregard well-known legal rules. What should be emphasized here is the fact that complainant’s motion for reconsideration has not cited any law or jurisprudence to support the plea that respondent grievously erred in his decision. Even the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing of said motion on 26 January 1999 does not reflect complainant citing a provision of law or decision or the Supreme Court or any appellate court which would support his submission.

    The transcript of stenographic notes of said hearing . . . provides a snapshot of a trial judge in the height of a hearing who feels unfairly maligned by unfounded rumors. Unfortunately, in the case of respondent, he lost his judicial composure. Instead of resorting to judicial remedies in the Rules of Court such as the contempt power, respondent instead provided a factual occasion for an irate litigant to attack not only the court ruling but the judge himself. It would be however, incorrect to posit that respondent denied the motion in the same hearing out of ‘ill-will or revenge.’ As borne out by the transcript, his ultimate ruling on the motion was that it was submitted for resolution. He never ruled on the motion for reconsideration by denying it in open court. Also, as the transcript bears out, he never ascribed the rumors to complainant. It would seem, however, that complainant felt alluded to as the source. Thus, he now avers that the ruling denying the motion for reconsideration was a product of ill-will or revenge.cralawred

    Anent the claim that respondent violated Administrative Circular No. 20-95 dated September 12, 1995 of the Supreme Court in issuing the temporary restraining order, under situation then prevailing in the court station, since the other judge was temporarily detailed to another judicial station, respondent substantially complied with said administrative circular by setting the hearing on the prayer for writ of preliminary injunction immediately and conducting the hearing accordingly.

    x       x       x


    Recommendation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In the category of —

    1) ignorance of the law — On the basis of the above discussion, respondent should be exonerated;

    2) serious misconduct and/or irregularity in rendering an obviously unjust decision both arising from hearing and deciding Civil Case No. R-1105 — On the basis of the above discussion on the charge, respondent should be exonerated.

    However, respondent should be given a STERN WARNING that future similar incidents of lapses in the exercise of his judicial power will be dealt with more severely." 6

    We adopt the findings of the investigating Justice.

    The acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. 7 For a judge to be held administratively liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, the complainant must prove that the judgment is patently contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence and made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. 8 We agree with the observation of the investigating Justice that complainant in this case failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that the Decision rendered by respondent judge in SP Civil Case No. R-1105 was tainted with bad faith or fraud. In the absence of such proof the charges against respondent judge cannot prosper.

    Another reason why this administrative complaint cannot prosper is the fact that complainant has appealed the Decision of respondent judge in SP Civil Case No. R-1105 and the appeal is still pending with the Court of Appeals. An administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by an erroneous judgment. The administrative or criminal remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available, and must wait on the result thereof. 9 For until complainant’s appeal is resolved and the case finally is terminated, the Court will have no basis to conclude whether or not respondent judge is indeed guilty of the charges of gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. We held in Flores v. Abesamis: 10

    "As everyone knows, the law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities being committed by a Trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e., error in appreciation or admission of evidence, or in construction or application of procedural or substantive law or legal principle) include a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition of a judgment or final order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary remedies against error or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character (i.e. whimsical, capricious, despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are inter alia the special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a petition for change of venue, as the case may be.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requisite for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether civil, administrative, or criminal in nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed." 11 (emphases ours)

    The pendency of complaint’s appeal thus precludes us from looking into the errors committed by respondent judge in rendering the questioned Decision and whether those errors would make him administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.

    Nonetheless, we glean from the records of this case that respondent judge did lose his judicial composure when he scolded complainant’s counsel in open court for the rumor allegedly being spread by a friend of the complainant in connection with his Decision in SP Civil Case No. R-1105. In this regard, we deem it proper to advise respondent judge to be more patient and tolerant in dealing with intrigues affecting his office and to avoid any public outbursts that may lead parties to conclude that the decisions rendered by him are tainted with bias or prejudice.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Ernesto P. Pagayatan is DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Kapunan, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Complaint Rollo, pp. 2-3.

    2. Exh. "F", Rollo, pp. 124-126.

    3. Comment, Rollo, p. 77.

    4. Rollo, p. 171.

    5. Rollo, pp. 240-254.

    6. Report submitted by Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero, pp. 10-15.

    7. Ruiz v. Bringas. 330 SCRA 62 (2000); Fule v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 698 (1998).

    8. Lumapas v. Tamin, 334 SCRA 391 (2000).

    9. In Re; Joaquin T. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405 (1995).

    10. 275 SCRA 302 (1997).

    11. At p. 316.

    A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626   August 28, 2001 - JOSELITO D. FRANI v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED