Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > February 2007 Resolutions > [AM OCA I.P.I No. 07-2544-RTJ : February 19, 2007] RE: REMBERTO C. KARA-AN V. JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 121, CALOOCAN CITY :

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 19 FEBRUARY 2007

AM OCA I.P.I No. 07-2544-RTJ - Re: Remberto C. Kara-an v. Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City

RESOLUTION

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

COMPLAINT, dated 29 August 2006, of Mr. Remberto Kara-an charging respondent Judge Adoracion G. Angeles with Dishonesty, Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code as well as Violation of the Lawyer's Oath and other laws and rules relative to Civil Case No. C-16 entitled "Remberto C. Kara-an v. Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines, et al.".

Complainant alleges that an Order dated 11 May 2006 was issued by the court which falsely informed complainant that, "This case has been re-raffled to the branch of this court in view of the designation of the RTC Branch 131 as an additional family court," and during the clarificatory hearing on 26 May 2006, respondent Judge allegedly scolded and warned complainant against filing an administrative case.

COMMENT dated 20 September 2006 of respondent Judge denying the allegations in the complaint. She claims that there was nothing during the hearing that could have "willfully, unlawfully, maliciously, dishonestly, fraudulently and feloniously, psychologically and physically caused and inflicted grave, great and serious undue injuries, damages and prejudices upon the person of Remberto Kara-an." She explains that she merely cautioned complainant and other practicing lawyers about the possible consequences of filing unfounded administrative charges against judges.

Evaluation: It appears from the reading of the complaint and the documents thereto attached that respondent Judge Angeles was of the honest opinion that Branch 131 has been designated as an additional Family Court. In fact, in her Order dated May 26, 2006 which was endorsed to this Office for appropriate action upon transmittal from the Chief Justice's Office, she believes that Civil Case No. C-016 has been re-raffled to her branch in view of the designation of the RTC-Branch 131 as an additional Family Court. It was only in a Reply (dated July 6, 2006) thereto that she came to know that Branch 131 unloaded said case due to inhibition of its presiding judge, and not because of its designation as an additional family court.

Additionally, a perusal of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken during the clarificatory hearing on May 26, 2006 would show that there was nothing unbecoming about respondent Judge's remarks. It was at best a word of caution for lawyers that there is actually a court issuance which protects members of the judiciary from baseless and unfounded administrative complaints (A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC, October 14, 2003).

Recommendation: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring members of the bench. At the same time, however, the Court should not hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. This Court could not be the instrument that would destroy the reputation of any member of the bench, by pronouncing guilt on mere speculation.^[1]

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Adoracion G. Angeles is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Planas v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1905, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 146, 161.