March 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-07-2071 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2587-RTJ) : March 24, 2008] ATTY. LORD M. MARAPAO V. JUDGE VENANCIO J. AMILA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, TAGBILARAN CITY, BOHOL :
[A.M. No. RTJ-07-2071 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2587-RTJ) : March 24, 2008]
ATTY. LORD M. MARAPAO V. JUDGE VENANCIO J. AMILA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, TAGBILARAN CITY, BOHOL
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 March 2008:
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2071 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2587-RTJ) (Atty. Lord M. Marapao v. Judge Venancio J. Amila, regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Tagbilaran City, Bohol)
Complainant Atty. Lord M. Marapao charges Judge Venancio J. Amila of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3 in Tagbilaran City with gross ignorance of then law in connection with the orders of judge Amila in three cases.
In Civil Case No. 6399 entitled Pernia v. Serrano, et al. for Quieting of Title, Atty. Marapao filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Amila�s decision, which dismissed the case. In an order dated June 20, 2000, Judge Amila denied the motion. From this denial, complainant filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA) that became CA-G.R. SP No. 60075. The 10th Division of the CA granted the petition and set aside and annulled Judge Amila�s order. Now, Atty. Marapao charges judge Amila with ignorance of the law for not applying Section 6, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
For his part, Judge Amila explained that the case was originally filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Tagbilaran, Bohol but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal order was appealed to the RTC, Branch 1 whose presiding judge, Judge Toefilo D. Baluma, denied the appeal. According to judge Amila, Atty. Marapao filed a motion for reconsideration but before the motion could be resolved, the case was re-raffled to him. Before the motion could pass upon the motion and declare the case to be covered by Sec. 8, Rule 40, Atty. Marapao filed a motion to declare the defendant in default. In an order dated June 20, 2006, he denied the motion to declare defendants in default for being premature and also denied the motion for reconsideration. Judge Amila averred that he did not mention in his ponencia that the case did not fall under Sec. 8, Rule 40, yet Atty. Marapao raised the issue before the CA, thus misleading the appellate court on a non-issue hat allegedly Atty. Marapao is raising before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Judge Amila added that the case is still on trial in his court.
The second case, which stemmed from Criminal Case Nos. 14988 and 14989 both entitled People of the Philipines v. Ricardo Suarez for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 22, is an appeal from a decision of the MTCC. In an Omnibus Decision, Judge Amila reversed the appealed decision. Again, Atty. Marapao filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00284. The CA granted the petition and annulled and set aside Judge Amila�s Omnibus Decision absolving the defendant of criminal liability because he found the penalty provided by law harsh and oppressive. It reinstated the Joint Decision of the MTCC declaring Judge Amila�s decision void. Atty. Marapao asserted that Judge Amila�s decision was contrary to prevailing jurisprudence.
Judge Amila admitted that he was not conversant with recent jurisprudence because of his lack of time to read and he has many cases to attend to; and oftentimes his decisions were based on codal provisions and in common sense on what he believed just , fair, and equitable.
Relative to the third case, Civil Case no. 6577 entitled Spouses Antonio and Fe Dominguez v. Victoria C. Sousa, et al., Atty. Marapao complained Judge Amila�s directive to the counsel of the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to implead additional defendants despite the plaintiffs having long rested their case. Atty. Marapao added that he filed his manifestation that the issue of impleading additional defendants had already been resolved by the trial court. Judge Amila allegedly denied the manifestation, subsequent second manifestation, and omnibus motion by way of a motion for reconsideration. A petition for certiorari is now pending with the CA on this matter.
After investigation, the OCA concluded that as to the first and third cases mentioned, the administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law was premature, since both cases are presently undergoing trial.
Furthermore settled is the rule that errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement, or substitute judicial remedies, and an inquiry into their administrative liability arising from judicial acts may be made only after other available remedies have been settled.[1] IN fine, an administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment.[2]
The second case is a different matter. In setting aside the criminal liability of the accused, Judge Amila ruled in effect that BP 22 is repugnant to the constitutional provision against imprisonment for on-payment of debt. The CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 00284, declared Judge Amila�s decision void for not faithfully following established legal doctrines.
Judges Amila�s conduct goes against Canon 6, Sec. 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary that states:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Venancio J. Amila GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law in connection with his decision in Criminal Case Nos. 14988 and 14989. He is ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (PhP 20,000) and is hereby WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. The charge relating to his orders in Civil Case Nos. 639 and 6577 is DISMISSED for being premature
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2071 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2587-RTJ) (Atty. Lord M. Marapao v. Judge Venancio J. Amila, regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Tagbilaran City, Bohol)
Complainant Atty. Lord M. Marapao charges Judge Venancio J. Amila of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3 in Tagbilaran City with gross ignorance of then law in connection with the orders of judge Amila in three cases.
In Civil Case No. 6399 entitled Pernia v. Serrano, et al. for Quieting of Title, Atty. Marapao filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Amila�s decision, which dismissed the case. In an order dated June 20, 2000, Judge Amila denied the motion. From this denial, complainant filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA) that became CA-G.R. SP No. 60075. The 10th Division of the CA granted the petition and set aside and annulled Judge Amila�s order. Now, Atty. Marapao charges judge Amila with ignorance of the law for not applying Section 6, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
For his part, Judge Amila explained that the case was originally filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Tagbilaran, Bohol but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal order was appealed to the RTC, Branch 1 whose presiding judge, Judge Toefilo D. Baluma, denied the appeal. According to judge Amila, Atty. Marapao filed a motion for reconsideration but before the motion could be resolved, the case was re-raffled to him. Before the motion could pass upon the motion and declare the case to be covered by Sec. 8, Rule 40, Atty. Marapao filed a motion to declare the defendant in default. In an order dated June 20, 2006, he denied the motion to declare defendants in default for being premature and also denied the motion for reconsideration. Judge Amila averred that he did not mention in his ponencia that the case did not fall under Sec. 8, Rule 40, yet Atty. Marapao raised the issue before the CA, thus misleading the appellate court on a non-issue hat allegedly Atty. Marapao is raising before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Judge Amila added that the case is still on trial in his court.
The second case, which stemmed from Criminal Case Nos. 14988 and 14989 both entitled People of the Philipines v. Ricardo Suarez for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 22, is an appeal from a decision of the MTCC. In an Omnibus Decision, Judge Amila reversed the appealed decision. Again, Atty. Marapao filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00284. The CA granted the petition and annulled and set aside Judge Amila�s Omnibus Decision absolving the defendant of criminal liability because he found the penalty provided by law harsh and oppressive. It reinstated the Joint Decision of the MTCC declaring Judge Amila�s decision void. Atty. Marapao asserted that Judge Amila�s decision was contrary to prevailing jurisprudence.
Judge Amila admitted that he was not conversant with recent jurisprudence because of his lack of time to read and he has many cases to attend to; and oftentimes his decisions were based on codal provisions and in common sense on what he believed just , fair, and equitable.
Relative to the third case, Civil Case no. 6577 entitled Spouses Antonio and Fe Dominguez v. Victoria C. Sousa, et al., Atty. Marapao complained Judge Amila�s directive to the counsel of the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to implead additional defendants despite the plaintiffs having long rested their case. Atty. Marapao added that he filed his manifestation that the issue of impleading additional defendants had already been resolved by the trial court. Judge Amila allegedly denied the manifestation, subsequent second manifestation, and omnibus motion by way of a motion for reconsideration. A petition for certiorari is now pending with the CA on this matter.
After investigation, the OCA concluded that as to the first and third cases mentioned, the administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law was premature, since both cases are presently undergoing trial.
Furthermore settled is the rule that errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement, or substitute judicial remedies, and an inquiry into their administrative liability arising from judicial acts may be made only after other available remedies have been settled.[1] IN fine, an administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment.[2]
The second case is a different matter. In setting aside the criminal liability of the accused, Judge Amila ruled in effect that BP 22 is repugnant to the constitutional provision against imprisonment for on-payment of debt. The CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 00284, declared Judge Amila�s decision void for not faithfully following established legal doctrines.
Judges Amila�s conduct goes against Canon 6, Sec. 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary that states:
SEC.3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.A heavy case load is no reason for a judge not to keep abreast with recent decision of the Supreme Court. Ignorance of the law excuses no one. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statues and rules. It is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles and be aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines. He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his passion for truth, to the end that he be the personification of justice and the rule of law. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it. Anything less is gross ignorance of the law.[3]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Venancio J. Amila GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law in connection with his decision in Criminal Case Nos. 14988 and 14989. He is ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (PhP 20,000) and is hereby WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. The charge relating to his orders in Civil Case Nos. 639 and 6577 is DISMISSED for being premature
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Salcepdo v. Caguioa, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1328, February 11, 2004, 422 SCRA 426, 431.
[2] Estrada, Jr. v. Himalaloan, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1617 (Formerly A.M. No. 02-1342-MTJ), November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 353, 363.
[3] Genil v. Rivera, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1619 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1556-MTJ), January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 363, 373.
