October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. OCA IPI NO. 10-174-CA-J : October 11, 2011]
LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST JUSTICE MARIO LOPEZ, COURT OF APPEALS
"A.M. OCA IPI NO. 10-174-CA-J (Letter-Complaint against Justice Mario Lopez, Court of Appeals) - Acting on the unsigned Executive Brief accusing Court of Appeals Justice Mario V. Lopez of misconduct, the Court DISMISSES the same since there exists no prima facie case to warrant the conduct of administrative proceedings against him.
The unsigned Executive Brief, which is treated as an administrative complaint, is aimed at the decisions of the Court of Appeals penned by Justice Lopez, reversing the order of preventive suspension by the Ombudsman against certain public officers from Davao.
The acts of a judge, pertaining to his judicial functions, are not subject to disciplinary action, unless they are tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith.[1] The remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the unfavorable decision or order to the higher court for review and correction.[2] Unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonesty, the remedy is not to file an administrative complaint.[3]
The criticisms raised in the unsigned Executive Brief deal with the substantial merits of the Decisions penned by Justice Lopez, and are clearly beyond the scope of an administrative complaint. Justice Lopez is presumed to be performing his judicial function in good faith. Thus, any error that the aggrieved party may perceive in the rulings should be properly lodged as an appeal to a higher court, and not as an administrative complaint.
In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence.[4] In this case, the Executive Brief failed to substantiate how Justice Lopez's ponencias were tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. Aside from its bare allegations of strange circumstances pertaining to the raffle and the issuance of the temporary restraining order, no extrinsic or substantial evidence was presented to give rise to any suspicion of judicial wrongdoing. That he issued the temporary restraining orders is not by itself a sufficient ground to hold him administratively liable.
That Justice Lopez and the counsel for the winning party belong to the same law school is insufficient to support a finding of bias and prejudice against the former. Unless proven otherwise, judicial officers are presumed to be fair and impartial, even if they were law school classmates of one of the party's counsel.[5] Absent any extrinsic evidence that would point to undue bias on the part of Justice Lopez in favor of his fellow law school alumnus, the Court will not overturn the presumption of impartiality.
The suspicions raised against the raffling system of the Court of Appeals, which led to the assignment of both cases to Justice Lopez, are likewise unfounded. The system of raffling cases in the Court of Appeals is open and conducted without any influence of the Justices to whom the case is assigned.[6] Justice Lopez could not have manipulated the raffling system in order to be assigned as ponente of both cases. It was by sheer coincidence that he found himself assigned to the two cases, subjects of the Executive Brief.
In any case, if any of the parties had any hint of irregularity with respect to the raffling of the case, which is done in public, then the concern should have been raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The subsequent questioning of the integrity of the raffling system is thus rendered unconvincing, especially since it was belatedly raised after an unfavorable decision had already been rendered.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Court of Appeals Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez is hereby DISMISSED. No prima facie case has been established to warrant the conduct of further administrative proceedings against him."
Bersamin, J., on official business.
Del Castillo, J., on leave.
Perez, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Eda�o v. Asdala, A. M. No. RTJ-06-2007, 06 December 2010, 636 SCRA 466.[2] Tam v. Regencia, AM No. RTJ-05-1604, 27 June 2006, 493 SCRA 26.
[3] Id.
[4] Versoza v. Contreras, AM No. MTJ-06-1636, 12 March 2007, 518 SCRA 94.
[5] Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 139337, 15 August 2001, 363 SCRA 207.
[6] 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Rule III, Sec. 2.