September 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2704-RTJ : September 29, 2008] GERTRUDES C. SABERON V. PRESIDING JUDGE LOUIS P. ACOSTA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, PASIG CITY [THEN PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, DINAGAT ISLAND, SURIGAO DEL NORTE :
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2704-RTJ : September 29, 2008]
GERTRUDES C. SABERON V. PRESIDING JUDGE LOUIS P. ACOSTA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, PASIG CITY [THEN PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, DINAGAT ISLAND, SURIGAO DEL NORTE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 29 September 2008:
A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2704-RTJ (Gertrudes C. Saberon v. Presiding Judge Louis P. Acosta, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City [then Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte).�This administrative case stemmed from two criminal cases for falsification of public documents docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 7198 and 7199 entitled People of the Philippines v. Alfredo T. Bonpin and Atty. Flordeliza R. Dedumo-Corro raffled to the RTC, Br. 32, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte presided over by respondent judge.
The aforesaid criminal cases refer to the alleged falsification of the real estate mortgage and promissory notes covering the conjugal properties of the complainant and her husband. On motion of the defendants, respondent judge granted the demurrer to evidence in an order dated 25 September 2007, to which order the private prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration. A week after the filing of the motion for reconsideration, the complainant filed the instant administrative complaint.
In her complaint[1] dated 11 October 2007, complainant alleged that respondent judge irregularly, improperly and unlawfully issued the subject order by willfully and deliberately disregarding the inculpatory evidence against the accused through gross ignorance of the law and applicable jurisprudence and through manifest impartiality in favor of both accused, thus making respondent judge liable under the provisions of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, as amended, as he has caused injury to the complainant and her husband.
She claimed that although no direct evidence was presented to show that either or both accused forged the signatures of her husband on the subject documents, the uncontradicted fact is that the falsified documents came from the Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation (SRBC) whose president is accused Alfredo Bonpin and that he used these documents after accused Atty. Flordeliza Corro notarized them even in the absence of her husband for the purpose of foreclosing their properties which they did not mortgage to SRBC. According to complainant, respondent judge willfully and deliberately disregarded the rule that the holder and users of the falsified documents are deemed to be the falsifiers or forgers of such documents.
In his comment[2] dated 29 November 2007, respondent judge essentially argued that the grant of demurrer to evidence and the concomitant dismissal of the cases which complainant assailed are matters pertaining to the exercise of his adjudicative functions that cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies, such as the motion for reconsideration already filed by the private prosecutor. Respondent judge further maintained that he cannot be sanctioned unless the error or mistake was proven to be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in bad faith. He added that in the absence of a showing to the contrary, a defective or erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith. Respondent judge likewise averred that complainant and her husband were not deprived of due process of law as the prosecution had its day in court. The demurrer to evidence was allegedly granted only after due notice and hearing, and after careful scrutiny of the evidence on record and the arguments of the parties. Respondent judge contended that the instant case was filed merely to spite and harass him as the complainant is publicly known to indiscriminately file unfounded charges against judges and lawyers of the party opposing her. He thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed for being clearly unfounded and baseless.
Thereafter, complainant filed a Motion to Reconsider the Letter dated November 22, 2007 of Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepa�o.[3] Complainant deprecated respondent Judge's assertion in the latter's comment that she had been filing frivolous complaints against judges who did not decide in her favor. She reiterated her allegations in her complaint relative to respondent judge's deplorable grant of the demurrer to evidence despite overwhelming evidence of the accused's guilt. Complainant also included therein an additional charge against respondent judge - that he had been seen using a red Mitsubishi Pajero with plate number LME 494 owned by SRBC. To establish her contention, she attached the affidavits of two persons who had seen respondent judge using the said vehicle.[4] She also attached uncertified documents[5] allegedly obtained from the Land Transportation Office showing that a red Mitsubishi Pajero with plate no. LME 494 is registered in the name of SRBC, as well as two photographs[6] of the said vehicle parked in an unidentified parking lot.
In his Manifestation/Comment[7] dated 28 February 2008, respondent judge made note of his non-receipt of the purported letter of Court Administrator Elepano. Nevertheless, he answered the additional charges made by complainant against him. He denied ever using the subject vehicle during his stay in Surigao City. As proof of his defense, he attached two joint affidavits of security guards of the Hall of Justice and of the employees of AdEn Apartelle who all attested that they had never seen respondent judge board or alight from the subject vehicle and instead they had always seen him use his old Mercedes Benz and later his second-hand black Honda Civic when the former was sent to Metro Manila due to mechanical defects.[8] Respondent judge declared that he is very much aware of the ethical standards for judges and that he lives by such standards. He likewise questioned the credibility of complainant's witnesses whom he has never met and who, according to his staff, were always seen with the complainant during the hearings in the criminal cases.
In her Reply to the Manifestation/Comment,[9] complainant reiterated that she is charging respondent judge with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, gross misconduct, manifest partiality, unexplained wealth and maladministration of justice for using the motor vehicle of Alfredo Bonpin and/or SRBC both of whom have had civil and criminal cases in the court then presided over by respondent judge, said parties being represented by their common legal counsel who boast of not having lost a single case in the sala of respondent judge. She attached the affidavits of five (5) additional witnesses, including that of the alleged records clerk of AdEn Apartelle, who all attested seeing respondent judge ride the red Mitsubishi Pajero.[10]
In his Report[11] dated 5 September 2008, Court Administrator Jose P. Perez recommended the dismissal of the instant complaint. He found, to wit:
This Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the Court Administrator as they are in accord with law and the facts of the case. Whether or not respondent judge erred in the exercise of his judicial discretion by granting the defendants' demurrer to evidence is a matter that cannot be taken up in an administrative proceeding. A party's remedy, if prejudiced by the orders of a judge given in the course of a trial, lies with the proper reviewing court, not with the Office of the Court Administrator by means of an administrative complaint.[13] It is axiomatic that, where some other judicial means is available, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular.[14]
Anent respondent judge's use of a vehicle allegedly owned by Alfredo Bonpin and/or SRBC, complainant failed to sufficiently establish the same. Thus, we are constrained to dismiss her charges as unsubstantiated. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.[15] Herein complainant failed to discharge such burden.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant case for lack of merit.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2704-RTJ (Gertrudes C. Saberon v. Presiding Judge Louis P. Acosta, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City [then Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte).�This administrative case stemmed from two criminal cases for falsification of public documents docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 7198 and 7199 entitled People of the Philippines v. Alfredo T. Bonpin and Atty. Flordeliza R. Dedumo-Corro raffled to the RTC, Br. 32, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte presided over by respondent judge.
The aforesaid criminal cases refer to the alleged falsification of the real estate mortgage and promissory notes covering the conjugal properties of the complainant and her husband. On motion of the defendants, respondent judge granted the demurrer to evidence in an order dated 25 September 2007, to which order the private prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration. A week after the filing of the motion for reconsideration, the complainant filed the instant administrative complaint.
In her complaint[1] dated 11 October 2007, complainant alleged that respondent judge irregularly, improperly and unlawfully issued the subject order by willfully and deliberately disregarding the inculpatory evidence against the accused through gross ignorance of the law and applicable jurisprudence and through manifest impartiality in favor of both accused, thus making respondent judge liable under the provisions of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, as amended, as he has caused injury to the complainant and her husband.
She claimed that although no direct evidence was presented to show that either or both accused forged the signatures of her husband on the subject documents, the uncontradicted fact is that the falsified documents came from the Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation (SRBC) whose president is accused Alfredo Bonpin and that he used these documents after accused Atty. Flordeliza Corro notarized them even in the absence of her husband for the purpose of foreclosing their properties which they did not mortgage to SRBC. According to complainant, respondent judge willfully and deliberately disregarded the rule that the holder and users of the falsified documents are deemed to be the falsifiers or forgers of such documents.
In his comment[2] dated 29 November 2007, respondent judge essentially argued that the grant of demurrer to evidence and the concomitant dismissal of the cases which complainant assailed are matters pertaining to the exercise of his adjudicative functions that cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies, such as the motion for reconsideration already filed by the private prosecutor. Respondent judge further maintained that he cannot be sanctioned unless the error or mistake was proven to be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in bad faith. He added that in the absence of a showing to the contrary, a defective or erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith. Respondent judge likewise averred that complainant and her husband were not deprived of due process of law as the prosecution had its day in court. The demurrer to evidence was allegedly granted only after due notice and hearing, and after careful scrutiny of the evidence on record and the arguments of the parties. Respondent judge contended that the instant case was filed merely to spite and harass him as the complainant is publicly known to indiscriminately file unfounded charges against judges and lawyers of the party opposing her. He thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed for being clearly unfounded and baseless.
Thereafter, complainant filed a Motion to Reconsider the Letter dated November 22, 2007 of Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepa�o.[3] Complainant deprecated respondent Judge's assertion in the latter's comment that she had been filing frivolous complaints against judges who did not decide in her favor. She reiterated her allegations in her complaint relative to respondent judge's deplorable grant of the demurrer to evidence despite overwhelming evidence of the accused's guilt. Complainant also included therein an additional charge against respondent judge - that he had been seen using a red Mitsubishi Pajero with plate number LME 494 owned by SRBC. To establish her contention, she attached the affidavits of two persons who had seen respondent judge using the said vehicle.[4] She also attached uncertified documents[5] allegedly obtained from the Land Transportation Office showing that a red Mitsubishi Pajero with plate no. LME 494 is registered in the name of SRBC, as well as two photographs[6] of the said vehicle parked in an unidentified parking lot.
In his Manifestation/Comment[7] dated 28 February 2008, respondent judge made note of his non-receipt of the purported letter of Court Administrator Elepano. Nevertheless, he answered the additional charges made by complainant against him. He denied ever using the subject vehicle during his stay in Surigao City. As proof of his defense, he attached two joint affidavits of security guards of the Hall of Justice and of the employees of AdEn Apartelle who all attested that they had never seen respondent judge board or alight from the subject vehicle and instead they had always seen him use his old Mercedes Benz and later his second-hand black Honda Civic when the former was sent to Metro Manila due to mechanical defects.[8] Respondent judge declared that he is very much aware of the ethical standards for judges and that he lives by such standards. He likewise questioned the credibility of complainant's witnesses whom he has never met and who, according to his staff, were always seen with the complainant during the hearings in the criminal cases.
In her Reply to the Manifestation/Comment,[9] complainant reiterated that she is charging respondent judge with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, gross misconduct, manifest partiality, unexplained wealth and maladministration of justice for using the motor vehicle of Alfredo Bonpin and/or SRBC both of whom have had civil and criminal cases in the court then presided over by respondent judge, said parties being represented by their common legal counsel who boast of not having lost a single case in the sala of respondent judge. She attached the affidavits of five (5) additional witnesses, including that of the alleged records clerk of AdEn Apartelle, who all attested seeing respondent judge ride the red Mitsubishi Pajero.[10]
In his Report[11] dated 5 September 2008, Court Administrator Jose P. Perez recommended the dismissal of the instant complaint. He found, to wit:
x x x x
Anchored on the well-settled rule that "(a) patent disregard of simple, elementary and well-known rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law," the issue sought to be resolved is whether or not the questioned rule is so elementary so much so that there is nothing left for the judge to determine but to merely apply the rule.
We find that it is not. It bears stressing that the questioned rule is among the disputable presumptions under the Rule on Evidence, for which reason, such may only be applied after the judge has appreciated all evidence presented in court. This being so, the same is not so elementary that the failure to apply the same constitutes gross ignorance of the law. For the same reason, assuming for the sake of argument, that respondent judge, indeed, erred in granting the demurrer to evidence, such error should not constitute gross ignorance of the law.
The issue, therefore, cannot be resolved in this administrative proceeding. As correctly pointed out by respondent judge, settled is the rule that where the alleged acts of the judge appear to be erroneous, 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. This is so. because the filing of an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, x x x
Moreover, respondent judge was able to controvert the above allegations by submitting the statements of the six (6) security guards posted at the Hall of Justice, Surigao City and three (3) employees of the AdEn Apartelle, where he temporarily resides.
x x x x
The reliability of the statements of these security guards is unquestionable considering that it is their very duty to "record the arrival and departure of all the occupants of the Hall of Justice" and/or as a matter of courtesy "meet the arrival of the vehicles of the Judges, when they arrive and sends off and salute whenever they depart from the Hall of Justice (sic)." Hence, there is no way by which these guards could have not noticed respondent judge use a red pajero if the allegations of the complainant and her witnesses were true.
This is further strengthened by the execution of another Joint Affidavit by the two (2) Front Desk Clerks and one (1) Room Boy employed at the AdEn Apartelle where respondent judge stayed during his incumbency at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Surigao City.
x x x x
Their statements are likewise reliable because Front Desk Clerks are posted at the entrance of the building and could see the passing of the vehicles, more so, when its parking lot is visible from the location of the front desks, as could be deduced from their affidavit.
Simply put, the security guards at the Hall of Justice and the Front Desk Clerks of the apartelle. where respondent judge resided, are the right persons who can credibly dispute or confirm the allegations of the complainant, owing to their functions as such.
x x x x
Pursuant to A.M. No. 99-2-04-SC (In Re: Dispensing with Rejoinder), this Office deemed it proper to disregard the rejoinder in the disguise of a "Reply to the Manifestation/Comment." Even assuming that the Reply may still be considered, insofar as the matter on the use of a red Pajero is concerned, a reading of the entire pleading would show that the complainant is just using this administrative proceeding to harass the respondent by delaying the resolution of the matter through the never ending inclusion of additional unsubstantiated charges, the last of which were Gross Misconduct, Unexplained Wealth and Maladministration of Justice.[12]
This Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the Court Administrator as they are in accord with law and the facts of the case. Whether or not respondent judge erred in the exercise of his judicial discretion by granting the defendants' demurrer to evidence is a matter that cannot be taken up in an administrative proceeding. A party's remedy, if prejudiced by the orders of a judge given in the course of a trial, lies with the proper reviewing court, not with the Office of the Court Administrator by means of an administrative complaint.[13] It is axiomatic that, where some other judicial means is available, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular.[14]
Anent respondent judge's use of a vehicle allegedly owned by Alfredo Bonpin and/or SRBC, complainant failed to sufficiently establish the same. Thus, we are constrained to dismiss her charges as unsubstantiated. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.[15] Herein complainant failed to discharge such burden.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant case for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-6.
[2] Id. at 19-22.
[3] Said letter of Court Administrator Elepano cannot be found in the rollo of this case and the complainant did not attach a copy thereof to her Motion to Reconsider.
[4] Affiant Felix Navarro attested thai he is a resident of Villa Corito Subdivision, Surigao City; that on several occasions while he was at the capitol building, he saw Judge Acosta board the vehicle with plate number LME 494 which sped away towards the city; rollo, p. 36.
Affiant Chito Nojara attested that he resides near the AdEn Hotel where Judge Acosta lived during his stay in Surigao City; that in several instances he saw him board a vehicle with plate no. LME 494 towards the Hall of Justice Building, Capitol, Surigao City; and that he also saw Judge Acosta in several instances returning to his rented house from the office; id. at 37.
[5] Id. at 33-34.
[6] Id. at 35.
[7] Id. at 43-44.
[8] Id. at 45-46.
[9] Id. at 47-49.
[10] Id. at 60-64.
[11] Id. at 80-86.
[12] Id. at 83-86.
[13] Atty. Hilario v. Hon. Ocampo III, 422 Phil. 593, 606 (2001) citing Dionisio v. Escano, A.M. No. RTJ 98-1400, February 1, 1999, 302 SCRA 411; See Philippine Geriatrics Foundation, Inc. v. Layosa, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1249, September 4, 2001, 364 SCRA 287.
[14] Atty. Hilario vs. Hon. Ocampo III, supra citing Santos v. Orlino, Adm. Mat. No. RTJ-98-1418, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 101.
[15] Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).
