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
 

   
May-2004 Jurisprudence                 

  • People v. Castillo : 118912 : May 28, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Vasquez : 123939 : May 28, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Varona v. CA: 124148 : May 20, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • Bernardo v. CA: 124261 : May 27, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Ayala Land Inc v. Navarro : 127079 : May 7, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • People v. Bello : 124871 : May 13, 2004 : J. Puno : En Banc : Decision

  • Espinosa v. CA: 128686 : May 28, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • Sacdalan v. CA: 128967 : MAy 20, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman : 131445 : May 27, 2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Decision

  • People v. Simon : May 27, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : En Banc : Decision

  • BPI Family Savings Bank Inc v. First Metro Investment Corp : 132390 : May 21, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • The Executive Secretary v. CA: 131719 : May 25, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Enrile v. Senate Electoral Tribunal : 132986 : May 19, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : En Banc : Decision

  • People v. Magbanua : 133004 : May 20, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • Sps Del Rosario v. Montaa : 134433 : May 28, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Bagnate : 133685-86 : May 20, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Tee Dee v. CA: 135721 : May 27, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Dimayacyac v. CA: 136264 : May 28, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. De Jesus : 134815 : May 27, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Comapny : 138031 : May 27, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Ortillas : 137666 : May 20, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Alcanzado : 138335 : May 20, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Agudez : 138386-87 : May 20, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : En Banc : Decision

  • People v. Tira : 139615 : May 28, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

  • Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Heirs of Augusto : 140417 : May 28, 2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Decision

  • People v. De los Reyes : 140680 : May 28, 2004 : Callejo, Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Lui v. Sps Matillano : 141176 : May 27, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Phil Journalists Inc v. Michael Mosqueda : 141430 : May 7, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • Cruz v. Phil Global Communication Inc : 141868 : May 28, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • People v. Pineda : 141644 : May 27, 2004 : J. Carpio : En Banc : Decision

  • Mabunga v. People : 142039 : May 27, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

  • Pasong Bayabas Farmers Asso'n Inc v. CA: 142359 : MAy 25, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • San Juan De Dios Educ'l Foundation Employees Union v. San Juan De Dios Educ'l Foundation Inc : 143341 : May 28, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Phil Geothermal Inc v. National Power Corp : 144302 : May 22, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Resolution

  • People v. Jubail : 143718 : May 19, 2004 : J. Carpio : First Division : Decision

  • Zaragoza v. Nobleza : 144560 : May 13, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

  • Sps Isabelo v. Hon CA: 144576 : May 28, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

  • Gonzales v. PAGCOR : 144891 : May 27, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

  • Siena Realty Corp v. Gal-Lang : 145169 : May 13, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

  • Barrera v. People : 145233-52 : May 28, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

  • Cotabato Timberland Co v. C Alcantara and Sons Inc : 145469 : May 28, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

  • Salalima v. ECC : 146360 : May 20, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Delmindo : 146810 : May 27, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

  • Phil Communications Satellite Corp v. Globe Telecom Inc : 147324 : May 25, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • Lanuza v. Muoz : 147372 : May 27, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

  • Corporate Inn Hotel v. Lizo : 148279 : May 27, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • R Transport Corp v. Ejandra : 148508 : May 20, 2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Decision

  • People v. Kim : 148586 : May 25, 2004 : J. Vitug : En Banc : Decision

  • People v. Belonio : 148695 : May 27, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Catalina Security Agency v. Gonzalez-Decano : 149039 : MAy 27, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : En Banc : Decision

  • Rep of the Phil v. Quintero -Hamano : 149498 : May 20, 2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Decision

  • PNB v. RBL Enterprises Inc : 149569 : May 28, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • UCPB v. Magpayo : 149908 : May 27, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Resolution

  • Okabe v. Gutierrez : 150185 : May 27, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • G.R. No. 150224 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEL YATAR

  • SMC Quarry 2 Workers Union v. TItan Megabags Industrial Corp : 150761 : May 19, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Guierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • Sps Tan v. Mandap : 150925 : May 27, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

  • Salazar v. Callejo Sr : 151068 : May 21, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Resolution

  • Sps Gudoy v. Guadalquiver : 151136 : May 27, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Decision

  • DBP v. West Negros College Inc : 152359 : May 21, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Resolution

  • People v. Magdaraog : 151251 : May 19, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • Milwaukee Industries Corp v. Pampanga III Electric Cooperative Inc : 152569 : May 31, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • The Province of Batangas v. Romulo : 152774 : May 27, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

  • People v. Estoya : 153538 : May 19, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • Sps Samson v. Rivera : 154355 : May 20, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • CSC v. Joson : 154674 : May 27, 2004 : En Banc : Decision

  • People v. Cajucom : 155023 : May 28, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Yu : 155030 : May 18, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Ceballos v. Mercado : 155856 : May 28, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • Piltel v. Tecson : 156966 : May 7, 2004 : J. Vitug : Third Division : Decision

  • San Pedro v. Lee : 156522 : May 28, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Eceta v. Eceta :157037 : May 20, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Bautista v. CA: 157219 : May 28, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Chua v. Victorio : 157568 : May 18, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Bernat v. Sandiganbayan : 158018 : May 20, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • Go v. CA: 158922 : 158922 : May 28, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Sim Jr v. CA: 159280 : May 18, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Abante Jr : Lamadrid Bearing & Parts Corp : 159890 : May 28, 2004 : First Division : Decision

  • Estrella v. COMELEC : 160465 : May 27, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : En Banc : Resolution

  • Gaviola v. Salcedo : AC 3037 : May 20, 2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Resolution

  • Zaballero v. Montalvan : AC 4370 : May 25, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • Orbe v. Adaza : AC 5252 : May 20, 2004 : J. Vitug : Third Division : Decision

  • Bon v. Ziga : AC 5436 : May 27, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • De Juan v. Baria III : AC 5817 : May 27, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Resolution

  • Ricafort v. Bansil : AC 6298 : May 27, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Re: Mr Datu Ashary M Alauya : AM 02-4-03-SDC : May 27, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc : Decision

  • Re: Alleged Tampering of the DTR of Sherry B. Cervantes : AM 03-8-463-RTC : May 20, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Bejarasco Jr v. Buenconsejo : AM MTJ-02-1417 : May 27, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Arnado v. Buban : AM MTJ-04-1543 : May 31, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • Obaana Jr v. Ricafort : AM MTJ-04-1545 : May 27, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Quinto v. Vios : AM MTJ-04-1551 : May 21, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Resolution

  • Dy v. Pascua : AM P-04-1798 : May 27, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Aquino Jr v. Miranda : AM P-01-1453 : May 27, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc

  • Apuyan Jr v. Sta Isabel : AM P-01-1497 : May 28, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Fernandez Jr v. Gatan : AM P-03-1720 : May 28, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • Sismaet v. Sabas : AM P-03-1680 : May 27, 2004 : J. Corona : En Banc : Resolution

  • Reliways Inc v. Grantoza : AM P-04-1812 : May 28, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Resolution

  • Manzon v. Perello : AM RTJ-02-1686 : May 7, 2004 : J. Vitug : Third Division : Resolution

  • Portic v. Villalon-Pornillos : AM RTJ-02-1717 : May 28, 2004 : J. Carpio : First Division : Decision

  • Cruz v. Ubiadas : AM RTJ-03-1768 : May 24, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Resolution

  • Sison v. Caibes Jr : AM RTJ-03-1771 : May 27, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Floresta v. Ubiadas : AM RTJ-03-1774 : May 27, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

  •  





     
     

    Quinto v. Vios : AM MTJ-04-1551 : May 21, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second
Division : Resolution

      Quinto v. Vios : AM MTJ-04-1551 : May 21, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Resolution

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [A.M. NO. MTJ-04-1551 : May 21, 2004]

    ATTY. ALBERTO P. QUINTO, Complainant, v. JUDGE GREGORIO S. VIOS, Municipal Trial Court, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, Respondent.

    R E S O L U T I O N

    CALLEJO, SR., J.:

    The instant administrative complaint arose when Atty. Alberto P. Quinto charged Judge Gregorio S. Vios, Municipal Trial Court, Lanao del Norte, with grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law relative to Criminal Case No. 2713 entitled People of the Philippines v. Andres Bolando and John Doe for grave threats.

    The complainant was the defense counsel in the said case. In his verified Complaint1 dated December 19, 2001, he alleged that during the trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses whose testimonies were based on the accounts of another eyewitness; hence, hearsay. On cross-examination, Prosecutor Jaime Umpa stipulated and admitted that both witnesses did not actually hear the accused utter the threatening words. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence, which, however, the respondent denied.

    During the hearing of August 15, 2001, the complainant manifested that he was waiving the presentation of his evidence.The respondent then allegedly got angry, shouted and scolded the complainant, stating that the defense had no right to waive the presentation of evidence. The complainant could hardly finish his every manifestation as he was repeatedly cut short by the respondent. The respondent did not listen to the complainants explanation and, thereafter, compelled the latter to withdraw his appearance as counsel of the accused, under pain of contempt. In the presence of the complainant, the respondent appointed a counsel de oficio.

    According to the complainant, the actuations of the respondent judge showed his arrogance and ignorance of the law, and that compelling him (the complainant) to withdraw as counsel of the accused under pain of contempt amounted to grave abuse of authority.

    In his comment,2 the respondent denied the complainants allegations and explained that what actually transpired during the hearing of Criminal Case No. 2713 was a difference of opinion on the application of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure in relation to Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. The respondent clarified that when the complainant manifested in open court that he was waiving the presentation of evidence for the accused, the respondent merely informed the complainant that he would be violating Sec. 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. Moreover, to do so would be prejudicial to the rights of the accused. The respondent also alleged that he warned the complainant that the accused may be convicted if he would not present evidence on his behalf.

    The respondent pointed out that it is for the court to assess and evaluate the evidence. He asserted that the complainant must have lost sight of the provision of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code and the pronouncement of the Court in several cases that grave threats can be committed indirectly. According to the respondent, the hearsay evidence rule would not apply in this case, as the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution can be considered as independently relevant statements or utterances which are facts in issue or circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. Even if such opinion is erroneous, the respondent judge maintained that the same cannot be the basis of an administrative action on the ground of abuse of authority or ignorance of the law.

    Finally, the respondent claimed that after several exchanges between the complainant, the prosecutor and the court, he and the prosecutor sincerely advised the complainant to withdraw as defense counsel. The complainant readily and voluntarily withdrew his appearance with the consent of the accused and a counsel de oficio was, thereafter, appointed in his stead. The respondent insisted that he did not abuse his authority when he advised the complainant to withdraw as defense counsel because it was made in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, in order to protect the rights of the accused.

    In his reply,3 the complainant insisted that what transpired during the hearing of August 15, 2001 was not a matter of difference in opinion, but a manifestation of grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law. According to the complainant, the denial of the motion to file demurer to evidence was akin to a denial of the demurrer itself; hence, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense, in accordance with Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. As the said Rules are merely directory and permissive, the respondent had no right to compel him (the complainant) to present evidence for the defense, or force him to withdraw as counsel on pain of contempt of court.

    The case was assigned to Executive Judge Valerio M. Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao Del Norte, Branch 6, for investigation, report and recommendation.4 In his Report dated December 12, 2003, the Executive Judge concluded that the respondent believed that the accused in the criminal case must present evidence to avoid prejudice. When the complainant insisted on waiving this right on behalf of the accused, the respondent repeatedly told complainant to withdraw as the only way to procure the presentation of evidence for the accused. In effect, the respondent virtually compelled the complainant to withdraw as counsel for the accused.

    According to the Executive Judge, the respondents insistence that the accused may not waive the right to present evidence was clearly erroneous. The respondent failed to understand the plain and unmistakable language of Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. However, the Executive Judge opined that it was a simple error of interpretation and application of rules, and concluded that the respondent was not moved by malice, dishonesty or corrupt motive.As the respondent did not actually cite the complainant for contempt and eventually acquitted the accused in the criminal case, no grave injury or undue prejudice was caused on any party.It was then recommended that the instant complaint against the respondent judge be dismissed.5

    THE COURTS RULING

    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.6 As we held in the recent case of Edgardo D. Balsamo v. Judge Suan :7 cralawred

    [A]s a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. He cannot be subjected to liability civil, criminal, or administrative for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction. The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. Thus, not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge.8 cralawred

    As found by Executive Judge Salazar, the respondent judge honestly believed that the complainant, as counsel for the accused in Criminal Case No. 2713, had no right to waive the presentation of evidence. However erroneous such belief, the same may only be considered as an error of judgment. A judges failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable.9 To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.10 cralawred

    It must be stressed that an administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment.Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to the aggrieved parties and the same has not yet been resolved with finality. Until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether respondent judge is administratively liable.11 cralawred

    In the case at bar, if, indeed, the complainant truly believed that the judges view was erroneous and wanted to protect his client, he should not have allowed the respondent, or anyone for that matter, to influence him to withdraw as counsel for the accused. If he felt prejudiced by the order of the respondent judge, he should have continued with the presentation of evidence for the accused, and, in the event that the respondent rendered an adverse decision, to file an appeal in the appropriate court, and not an administrative complaint against the judge.

    However, a perusal of the transcript of the stenographic notes12 in the August 15, 2001 hearing showed that the respondent, indeed, virtually compelled the latter to withdraw as counsel for the accused. As the Court Administrator opined in its Report dated March 18, 2003:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    Respondent judge is liable for misconduct when he threatened to punish complainant for contempt of court if he would refuse to withdraw his appearance, as counsel for the accused, when the latter insisted on waiving the presentation of the evidence for the defense.13 cralawred

    The respondent ought to be reprimanded for violating Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that a judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence. Rule 3.04 further provides, thus:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    Rule 3.04. A judge should be patient, attentive and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.

    The respondents actuations amount to vulgar and unbecoming conduct, classified as a light charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.14 However, in view of the respondents retirement on December 24, 2003, this sanction can no longer be meted on him. As opined by the Executive Judge, the instant administrative complaint has already inflicted upon the respondent the anxiety and apprehension that he might lose his retirement benefits after 41 years in the government service, ten of which were in the judiciary. To allow the respondent to fully enjoy his retirement benefits would be the most prudent course of action for the Court.

    WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against respondent Judge Gregorio S. Vios, Municipal Trial Court, Lanao del Norte.

    SO ORDERED.

    Quisumbing, (Acting Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and TINGA, JJ., concur.

    Puno, (Chairman), J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:


    1 Rollo, pp. 1-4.

    2 Id. at 42-47.

    3 Id. at 49-51.

    4 Id. at 57.

    5 Report and Recommendation, pp. 8-9.

    7 A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656, September 17, 2003.

    8 Id. at 13.

    9 Mina v. Gatdula, 376 SCRA 1 (2002).

    12 Annex G.

    13 Rollo,p. 55.

    14 The amendment took effect on October 1, 2001.

    Quinto v. Vios : AM MTJ-04-1551 : May 21, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second
Division : Resolution


    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