October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-181-CA-J : October 18, 2011]
COMPLAINT OF MR. DIONISIO A. LOPEZ, AGAINST HON. ISAIAS P. DICDICAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS AND HON. RENATO D. MUÑEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, CADIZ CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
"A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-181-CA-J (Complaint of Mr. Dionisio A. Lopez, against Hon. Isaias P. Dicdican, Associate Justice, Court of Appeals and Hon. Renato D. Muņez, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental) - Acting on the Verified Complaint filed by Mr. Dionisio A. Lopez, the Court DISMISSES the Administrative Complaint against Court of Appeals Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and Presiding Judge Renato D. Muņez of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60 of Cadiz City, Negros Occidental, since no prima facie case was established.
Complainant alleges that both Justice Dicdican and Judge Muņez should be subject to disciplinary action for convicting him of libel, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment, and ordering the payment of moral damages. In particular, he asserts that there was bad faith on the part of the CA Justices for their failure to discuss and note the Office of Solicitor General's position, which was for acquittal.
Complainant's conviction was later overturned by this Court in Lopez v. People of the Philippines.[1]
We have consistently held that, as a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty and corruption, the acts of judges in their official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad Faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. Errors committed in the exercise of a judge's adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies.[2]
Complainant failed to show any instance or proof that the Decisions respondents promulgated were attended by fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith.
Moreover, contrary to complainant's contention, Justice Yap did discuss the submission and position of the OSG in the CA's Resolution dated 7 April 2006.
WHEREFORE, the Verified Complaint against Court of Appeals Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and Presiding Judge Renato D. Muņez is DISMISSED. There exists no prima facie case to warrant the conduct further administrative proceedings against them.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R. No. 172203, 14 February 2011.[2] Maylas v. Sese, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2012, 4 August 2006, 496 SCRA 602.