EN
BANC
EQUATORIAL
REALTY DEVELOPMENT INC.,
Complainant,
A. M. No. MTJ-91-562
October 16, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, JR.,Presiding
Judge of Branch II of theMetropolitan
Trial Court
of Manila,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
ROMERO, J.:
Under
consideration is a complaint filed by Equatorial
Realty Development, Inc. charging Judge Casiano P. Anunciacion with
gross
ignorance of the law and partiality relative to Civil Case No. 119892,
entitled Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Albert Ng, doing
business
under the name and style of "Mr. Manly Department Store."
Complainant
Equatorial is the plaintiff in an
ejectment case against Albert Ng filed before the Metropolitan Trial
Court
presided by respondent Judge Casiano. Equatorial alleged that
respondent
Judge exhibited bad faith and favored Albert Ng in the adjudication of
the above-entitled case as manifested by a series of errors. Aside from
dismissing the case against Ng's wife, Tessie Lee, allegedly in
disregard
of the facts on record, complainant also alleged that the errors being
imputed were serious enough to show that they were not mere errors of
judgment
but manifestations of bad faith and partiality resulting in unduly
prolonging
the disposition of a simple ejectment case for about four years. The
errors
were allegedly committed by issuing the following:
1. an order[1]
dated January 20, 1988 granting the motion for intervention of Mayfair
Theater, Inc.;
2. an order[2]
dated September 20, 1988, granting the motion of Albert Ng for the
designation
of a commissioner to determine the prevailing rental rates in the
vicinity
of the leased premises and appointing his Branch Clerk of Court for
this
purpose;
3. a decision[3]
dated December 26, 1990 dismissing the amended complaint.
In the first
assailed order, respondent granted Mayfair
Theater's motion to intervene in Civil Case No. 119892 on the ground
that
it had an option to buy the subject property which option was given by
its former owner, Carmelo & Bauermann, Inc. Complainant opposed
Mayfair
Theater's motion to intervene contending that the latter had no legal
interest
in the case aside from the fact that Mayfair's option did not refer to
the leased premises subject of the ejectment case.
In the second
assailed order, respondent granted
Albert Ng's motion to appoint a commissioner to determine the
prevailing
rental rates in the vicinity of the leased premises. Complainant
opposed
said motion alleging that aside from the fact that the lease contract
had
expired and had not been renewed, said motion would only delay the
disposition
of the case. Moreover, respondent had no authority to fix the rent and
the fact that a commissioner was designated to determine the prevailing
rental rate was tantamount to gross ignorance of the law.cralaw:red
In the decision
rendered, respondent dismissed
complainant's amended complaint which sought to include Tessie Lee, the
wife of Albert Ng, as an additional defendant. Complainant alleged that
an investigation revealed that the registered owner and proprietor of
"Mr.
Manly Department Store" as well as the actual occupant was Tessie Lee
and
not Albert Ng. Respondent allegedly capitalized on this error to
dismiss
the case against Tessie Lee on the ground that the case was not brought
within the one year jurisdictional period against the latter, the real
party in interest while ignoring Ng's admission that he was the
occupant
of the subject property.cralaw:red
On account of
these alleged errors, complainant
moved for respondent's voluntary inhibition which the latter denied.cralaw:red
The complaint was
referred to the Office of the
Court Administrator. In his comment, respondent averred that his
order granting the motion for intervention was valid as it was in
accordance
with justice and did not delay the case as the hearings continued with
or without the intervenor. As to the order granting the motion to
designate
a commissioner to determine the prevailing rental rates in the
premises,
it was issued in good faith allegedly to give Albert Ng an opportunity
to dispute the reasonableness of the new rental rates imposed. He also
averred that it was complainant who caused the delay in the case's
disposition
when the latter: [1] opted to present evidence instead of pursuing its
motion for judgment on the pleadings previously filed; [2] tediously
presented
evidence justifying the increased rental while claiming expiration of
contract
as a ground for its complaint; [3] allegedly introduced newly
discovered
evidence; [4] moved for additional cross-examination of Albert Ng and
presented
additional evidence thereafter; and [5] instituted certiorari
proceedings
against his order designating a commissioner which caused a delay of at
least one year.cralaw:red
In his reply,
complainant alleged that the grant
of the intervention delayed the proceedings for four months, and when
the
intervention was withdrawn, respondent did not censure the intervenor
for
making a mockery of the administration of justice. It further alleged
that
respondent cannot claim good faith in granting the motion to designate
commissioner to determine prevailing rental rates as his order was a
patent
nullity, citing the decision of the Regional Trial Court that was
affirmed
by the Court of Appeals which stated that respondent had no authority
to
grant the same and that the appeal was merely "a clever scheme to
prolong
the occupancy of the premises."
The Office of the
Court Administrator recommended
the dismissal of the complaint against respondent Judge. This
Court
agrees with the Court Administrator's recommendation. The issuance and
rendition, respectively, of the orders and decision being complained of
as erroneous pertain to respondent's judicial functions. Besides,
complainant,
in assailing the orders and the decision of respondent never imputed
fraud,
dishonesty or corruption to him. None of these is evident simply
because
respondent did not consider complainant's arguments against the first
order,
namely: [1] Mayfair Theater's absence of legal interest; [2] delay in
the
disposition of the case due to said intervention; and [3] non-inclusion
of the leased premises in intervenor's alleged option to buy.
Well-established
is the rule that 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.[4]
In Louis Vuitton v. Villanueva,[5]
this court held:
"It is a general principle of the highest
importance
to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in
exercising
the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own
convictions,
without apprehension of personal consequences to himself." This concept
of judicial immunity rests upon considerations of public policy, its
purpose
being to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
As to the
charge of gross ignorance of the law, complainant
argued that respondent's order to grant Albert Ng's motion to designate
a commissioner to determine the prevailing rental rate in the vicinity
of the leased premises was erroneous since the lease contract had
expired.
Respondent, however, was able to justify said order when complainant
allegedly
presented evidence justifying increased rental while claiming
expiration
of the lease contract as a ground for its complaint.
Although said
order was subsequently set aside
by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, nevertheless, its
issuance was an exercise of judicial discretion coupled with the fact
that
complainant adduced no evidence to prove that it was motivated by bad
faith.cralaw:red
Bad faith does
not simply connote bad judgment
or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and
conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty thru some
motive
or interest or ill will.[6]
In this case, respondent's order can hardly be considered as evidence
of
bad faith under the circumstances. In fact, there was testimony to the
effect that complainant tried to justify the increased rental. Granting
that it was erroneous, it is presumed to have been issued in good faith
in the absence of proof to the contrary.[7]
This Court
reiterates the legal doctrine that,
as a matter of public policy, the acts of a judge in his official
capacity
are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are
erroneous.
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]
As to the
imputation of partiality in the rendition
of respondent's decision dismissing the amended complaint, that can, at
best, be considered as speculative. No evidence may be gleaned from the
records to prove that respondent favored Albert Ng in his decision. If
at all, the imputation of partiality is a mere suspicion. Mere
suspicion
that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough to subject
him to disciplinary action by this Court.[9]
In any case, the
filing of this administrative
case should not have been complainant's remedy. This Court agrees with
the Office of the Court Administrator, thus:
If complainant was prejudiced thereby,
its
remedy
lies with the proper court for the proper judicial action and not with
this Office. An appeal of the decision to the Court of Appeals would
have
been appropriate. It puzzles Us why this was not done, despite the
tenability
of complainant's legal position. In any case, complainant has failed to
prove nor do we believe that any error committed by respondent Judge
was
motivated by any improper consideration.[10]
Furthermore, a
judge is not administratively accountable
for every erroneous ruling or decision rendered provided he acts in
good
faith and without malice. The proper remedy of the aggrieved party is
not
an administrative charge against the judge but an appeal or petition
for
review of his decision.[11]
IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the Court resolved to
DISMISS the complaint against Judge Casiano P. Anunciacion with the
advice
for him to exercise more prudence in the issuance of the orders of his
court, with due regard to the correct applicable laws and
jurisprudence,
so as not to unnecessarily delay and prejudice the administration of
justice.cralaw:red
Let a copy of
this decision be attached to the
record of respondent Judge in this Court.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and
Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Mendoza, J., took no part.cralaw:red
_________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 33.
[2]
Rollo, p.59.
[3]
Rollo, p.88.
[4]
Alvarado v. Laquindanum, 245 SCRA 501 [1995].
[5]
216 SCRA 121 [1992] citing Pabalan v. Guevarra, 74 SCRA 53 [1976].
[6]
Board of Liquidators v. Kalaw, 20 SCRA 1007 [1967].
[7]
Contreras v. Solis, A. M. RTJ-94-1266, August 21, 1996.
[8]
Guillermo v. Reyes, Jr., 240 SCRA 154 [1995].
[9]
Gonzales v. Bersamin, 254 SCRA 652 [1996].
[10]
Rollo, p. 122.
[11]
Martin v. Vallarta, 200 SCRA 469, [1991]. |