Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2086 : September 08, 2008] JOSE ROMEL A. MURIO V. JUDGE ALFREDO P. JALAD, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, BISLIG CITY:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 September 2008:

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2086 (Jose Romel A. Murio v. Judge Alfredo P. Jalad, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Bislig City).-This administrative case stemmed from a mandamus case filed by some members of the Mindanao Tribal Resources Development Cooperative (hereinafter collectively referred to as MITREDECO) against several DENR officials for the latter's refusal to issue cutting permits to MITREDECO. The mandamus case was raffled to respondent judge's sala.

The defendants therein failed to appear at the pre-trial conference and were consequently declared in default by respondent judge. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus, MITREDECO was allowed to present evidence ex parte. Defendants filed a second motion for reconsideration which respondent judge also denied. Defendants subsequently filed a third motion for reconsideration which respondent judge granted. Respondent judge called the case for hearing but defendants failed to attend the hearing. MITREDECO's formal offer of exhibits were admitted in evidence and defendants were deemed to have waived their right to present evidence in view of their absence during the hearing. Upon motion of MITREDECO, the case was submitted for decision on 1 December 2005.

Thereafter, MITREDECO filed a motion to cite the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) at Bislig City in contempt for issuing cutting permits despite the prohibition against the same. It later manifested in open court that it was abandoning its motion and instead was seeking the issuance of a status quo order. The motion to maintain status quo was granted and the CENRO Bislig City was enjoined to refrain from issuing any document that would legitimize the transport and further cutting of falcate logs within the areas covered by the Certificates of Stewardship Contracts (CSC) subject of the mandamus case.

On 30 January 2006, a motion for intervention was filed by the Labisma Tree Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (LTFMPC) which was opposed by MITREDECO. Respondent denied the said motion for intervention. LTFMPC sought reconsideration. Meanwhile, a problem arose as to the disposal of the felled logs deposited at the back of the hall of justice. As the parties could not agree as to who would be the buyer of the felled logs, respondent judge withheld judgment until such time that the clerk of court could determine the best net price of the logs with the conformity of the parties.

Thereafter, respondent judge, with the consent of the parties, ordered the creation of a commission to survey the area covered by the CSCs of MITREDECO. The commission twice surveyed the area witnessed by representatives of the parties. Respondent judge ordered it to submit its report on 7 November 2007.

Without waiting for the resolution of the pending incidents, complainant filed the instant administrative case alleging that although he is not one of the plaintiffs in the mandamus case, he is the incumbent Chairman of MITREDECO. He charged respondent judge with failure to issue contempt order, gross ignorance of the law in granting the defendants' third motion for reconsideration, and undue delay in resolving the mandamus case which had already been submitted for decision on 1 December 2005.

For his defense, respondent judge basically argued that he could not issue a contempt order against the CENRO because no motion was filed by the plaintiffs to declare CENR Officer Calunsag in contempt. He also alleged that he granted defendants' third motion for reconsideration because they were not actually in default as they were able to file an answer. Defendants merely failed to appear at the pre-trial conference. He averred that he could not as yet resolve the mandamus case due to the subsequent filing of the motion for intervention, the motion to maintain status quo, and several other pending incidents that needed to be resolved first.

After hearing, the Investigating Justice^[1] rendered a report with the following recommendations:

"All the foregoing considered, the undersigned Investigating Justice hereby recommends that the charges against respondent judge ALFREDO P. JALAD for failure to issue contempt order, gross ignorance of the law and undue delay in resolving the case, be DISMISSED for lack of merit. Nevertheless, the Investigating Justice recommends that the respondent judge be ADMONISHED to be more vigilant in the performance of his sworn duty by, among others disposing of the court's business meticulously, having in mind that his orders, resolutions and decisions have to be understood by litigants, especially those who are unlettered."^[2]

As to the first charge, it was admitted by complainant during the hearing that MITREDECO's motion to cite CENRO in contempt was indeed abandoned. He likewise admitted that there was no order issued by respondent judge that was defied by the CENRO. Hence, there is no basis to hold respondent judge liable  for failing to issue a contempt order. As regards the granting of the third motion for reconsideration, the same should have been raised by MITREDECO in a certiorari proceeding and not in an administrative complaint absent any showing that respondent judge acted with malice or in bad faith. Anent the charge of undue delay in resolving the mandamus case, the Investigating Justice found that although the case was already submitted for decision, respondent judge's failure to resolve the same was justified by the subsequent pleadings/motions filed by MITREDECO, defendants and intervenor and other pending incidents. Hence, it could be safely taken that no last pleading has yet been filed with which to reckon the time as to when the mandamus case was deemed submitted for resolution. However, the Investigating Justice observed that respondent judge should have recalled in writing the 1 December 2005 Order which deemed the mandamus case submitted for decision as the filing of the subsequent pleadings had in effect reopened the case. She likewise noted that MITREDECO actively participated in the creation of the commission and survey of the areas, as well as in opposing the intervention of LTFMPC. Plaintiffs are now in estoppel to question the fact that as of the present time, no decision has yet been rendered by respondent.

This Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Justice as they are in accord with law and the facts of the case. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.^[3] Here, complainant's allegation that respondent failed to issue a contempt order lacks factual and legal basis. Furthermore, the delay in rendering a decision in the mandamus case was justified under the circumstances. As regards respondent judge's alleged gross ignorance of the law in granting the defendants' third motion for reconsideration, the same involves matters of judicial adjudication that is not the proper subject of an administrative complaint. The filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is neither the appropriate nor substitute remedy to question the propriety or impropriety of his decision. There are ample remedies under the Rules of Court provided for the purpose. 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.^[4]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case for lack of merit. However, respondent Judge Alfredo P. Jalad is hereby ADMONISHED to be more vigilant in the performance of his sworn duty by, among others, disposing of the court's business meticulously, having in mind that his orders, resolutions and decisions have to be understood by litigants, especially those who are unlettered.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.

^[2] Report, p. 35.

^[3] Morales, Sr. vs. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).

^[4] Atty. Hilario v. Hon. Ocampo III, supra citing Santos v. Orlino, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1418, 25 September 1998, 296 SCRA 101.