Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > March 2011 Resolutions > [A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2923-RTJ : March 28, 2011] MAYOR HELEN L. BUNAN, COMPLAINANT, -VERSUS- HON. PAZLINDA VILLAMOR-SANCHEZ, JUDGE DESIGNATE IN ELECTION PROTEST CAST NO. 04, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 50, SAN JACINTO, MASBATE, RESPONDENT. :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 March 2011, which reads as follows:  

A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2923-RTJ - MAYOR HELEN L. BUNAN, complainant, -versus- HON. PAZLINDA VILLAMOR-SANCHEZ, Judge Designate in Election Protest Cast No. 04, Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, San Jacinto, Masbate, respondent. 

RESOLUTION 

For our consideration is the motion for reconsideration filed by complainant Mayor Helen L. Bunan of the Municipality of San Fernando, Masbate, addressing our Resolution dated December 16, 2009 that dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit.

The complainant administratively charged the respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, manifest partiality and grave abuse of discretion for her alleged defiance of an Order of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in Election Protest Case No. 04, entitled "Marvi Espinosa Bravo v. Helen Letada Bunan" pending before the respondent's court. In the Order, the COMELEC directed the respondent judge, among others, to cease and desists from conducting revision proceedings over the contested ballots.

In a Resolution dated April 7, 2010, we required the respondent judge to file a comment on the motion for reconsideration.

In her Comment, the respondent judge contended that since she had not yet formally received a copy of the said COMELEC Order, she deemed it proper to proceed with the revision proceedings as time was of the essence in resolving the election protest case. She denied the complainant's claims that she failed and even refused to surrender the ballot boxes to the Presidential Election Supervisor (PES) who actually never came on the dates the ballot boxes were supposed to be inventoried and retrieved from the court's custody. Because the PES failed to come, the respondent judge continued with the revision proceedings on the condition that the proceedings would be terminated once he arrived. The respondent believed that her actions were in the exercise of judicial discretion. She observed, too, that the allegations in the motion are mere reiterations of the substantial allegations in the complaint.

We resolved to DENY the complainant's motion for reconsideration for lack of substantial merit.

As aptly observed, the complainant's arguments are mere reiterations of the allegations in her complaint, all of which we considered when we dismissed the administrative complaint at the first instance. In the absence of any new argument, we find no reason to reconsider our previous resolution.

The filing of an administrative complaint is not always the recourse for every irregular or erroneous decision or order issued by a judge where judicial remedy, such as a motion for reconsideration or an appeal is available.^[1] To hold otherwise would render judicial office untenable, for no person called upon to try the facts or interpret the law is infallible in his judgment.^[2] Only when the error is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith that administrative sanctions may be imposed against an erring judge acting in the exercise of his discretion.^[3] In the present case, we found no malice and bad faith on the part of the respondent judge.

WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the motion for reconsideration and CONFIRM the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Judge Pazlinda A. Villamor-Sanchez of Branch 50, Regional Trial Court of San Jacinto, Masbate. This dismissal is FINAL and no further pleadings shall be entertained.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Santos v. Orlina, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-98-I418, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 101.

^[2] Lopez v. Corpus, Adm. Matter No. 425-MJ, August 31, 1977, 78 SCRA 374; and Pilipinas Bank Tirona-Liwag; Adm. Matter No. CA-90-11, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 834. 

^[3] Quizon v, Balthazar, Jr., Adm. Case No. 532-MJ, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 293.