Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

"A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-179-CA-J (Re: Verified Complaint of Mr. Peter Clasico R. Tajanlangit against Hon. Rodrigo L. Lim, Jr., Hon. Angelita A. Gacutan, and Hon. Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, chairperson and members, respectively, Twenty-Third (23rd) Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City). - We resolve the administrative complaint, filed by Peter Clasico R. Tajanlangit (complainant), against Justices Rodrigo L. Lim, Jr., Angelita A. Gacutan and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela (respondent CA Justices), Chairperson and Members, respectively, of the former 23rd Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure, Incompetence, Bias and Partiality, Grave Misconduct, Acts Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Justice, Violation of Rules 3.01 and 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Interlocutory Order, Dishonesty, and Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 03404-MIN, entitled "Spouses Jerome T. Tajanlangit and Geraldine Tajanlangit v. Peter Clasico R. Tajanlangit.''

The complainant questions the respondent CA Justices' January 6, 2011 and January 17, 2011 resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 03404-MIN where the CA granted the ex parte motions of Spouses Jerome T. Tajanlangit and Geraldine Tajanlangit (Spouses Tajanlangit) for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the demolition of their residence and further acts of demolition, respectively. The complainant claims that he was denied due process and that the demolition sought to be enjoined had already been fait accompli by the time the TRO was issued. He also assails the respondent CA Justices' alleged inaction on his motion for their inhibition from hearing the case.

We required the respondent CA Justices to comment on the administrative complaint.

In her comment, respondent CA Justice Gacutan (then ponente of the assailed resolutions) prays for the dismissal of the complaint, arguing that (a) it is not the proper remedy to assail a perceived error in judgment; (b) the charge of gross ignorance of the law lacks basis for being premature, as the main case has not been decided with finality; (c) the motion for inhibition and other reliefs sought by the complainant can be addressed by appeal; (d) the ex parte issuance of a TRO is sanctioned by law; (e) they validly exercised their judicial discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions; (f) the complainant was accorded due process when he was heard in the pleadings he subsequently filed in opposition to the ex parte issuance of the TRO; (g) they enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties; and (h) the motion for inhibition was mooted when the case was transferred to a new ponente  because respondent CA Justice Gacutan transferred to CA Manila, respondent CA Justice Antonio-Valenzuela transferred to CA Cebu, and respondent CA Justice Lim voluntarily inhibited from the case.

In their separate comments, respondent CA Justices Lim and Antonio-Valenzuela adopted the arguments of respondent CA Justice Gacutan. Respondent CA Justice Lim also points out that the subsequent denial of the Spouses Tajanlangit's application for a writ of preliminary injunction negated the complainant's allegations of bias and partiality. Respondent CA Justice Antonio-Valenzuela adds that there was no irregularity in the issuance of the TRO and the subsequent January 17, 2011 resolution.

In a letter dated September 30, 2011 and in light of his compulsory retirement on October 25, 2011, respondent CA Justice Lim requested that his retirement benefits be released, without prejudice to the outcome of the present administrative complaint; in the meanwhile, the amount of P20,000.00 be withheld from these benefits to answer for whatever sanctions this Court may impose. should it find the complaint meritorious.

We dismiss the administrative complaint. 

The alleged errors attributed to the respondent CA Justices pertain to the exercise of their adjudicative functions. Such errors cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should be corrected through judicial remedies. The established doctrine is that disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. An inquiry into their administrative liability arising from judicial acts may be made only after other available remedies have been settled with finality. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether of criminal, civil or administrative nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have opened or closed. For obviously, if subsequent developments prove the judge's challenged act to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all.^[1] 

We have stressed that judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors; they should not be subject to intimidation, or the fear of criminal, civil or administrative sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions.^[2]

In this case, it was premature to file an administrative complaint against the respondent CA Justices when the complainant has not fully exhausted all available judicial remedies available to him, such as a petition for certiorari for any perceived grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent CA Justices.

Besides, the complainant has failed to substantiate his charge of bias and partiality or bad faith against the respondent CA Justices. He has relied mainly on surmises and conjectures, and on the mere fact that the resolutions were initially adverse to him. Bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment or order is adverse to a party.^[3] At any rate, any adverse effect of the TRO has been mooted by the respondent CA Justices' subsequent denial of the Spouses Tajanlangit's application for a writ of preliminary injunction. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent CA Justices regularly performed their duties will prevail.

Although the Court will never tolerate or condone any act, conduct or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the judiciary, neither will it hesitate to shield those under its employ from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.^[4]

WHEREFORE, the present administrative complaint is DISMISSED  as it pertains to the exercise of judicial functions, and, in any case, for prematurity and failure to exhaust judicial remedies. Any error that may have been created is judicial in character and should be first addressed through judicial remedies, not through the filing of an administrative case against the Justices acting on the case.

As requested, the retirement benefits of retiring Justice Rodrigo L. Lim, Jr. are hereby ordered released unless these are withheld for some other cause, less the sum of P20,000.00 to answer for any contingent liability arising from the administrative complaint. This withheld amount shall be released upon the finality of this Resolution."

Very truly yours,

  (Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Salcedo v. Bollozos, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2236, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 27, 42-43.

^[2] Id. at 43. 

^[3] Id. at 44. 

^[4] Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. Lavi�a, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2001, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 8, 19-20.