January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 11-194-CA-J : January 17, 2012]
EDGARDO M. RICO, COMPLAINANT, VERSUS JUSTICE EDGARDO T. LLOREN, RESPONDENT.
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 17, 2012, which reads as follows:
"A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 11-194-CA-J - EDGARDO M. RICO, complainant, versus JUSTICE EDGARDO T. LLOREN, respondent.
RESOLUTION
In a Letter[1] dated May 16, 2011, complainant Edgar M. Rico alleged that respondent Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, together with two other Justices of the 21st Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), issued a Resolution[2] dated January 28, 2011 in Consolidated Cases CA-G.R. SP Nos. 01883-MIN, 02060-MIN, 02079-MIN and 02215-MIN. Complainant pointed out that in a previous Resolution[3] dated January 9, 2009, Justice Lloren, as member of the 22nd Division, had already inhibited himself from the said consolidated cases. Thus, complainant prayed that Justice Lloren be sanctioned by the Court for signing the. Resolution dated January 28, 2011, which involved the consolidated cases.cralaw
In his Comment, Justice Lloren explained that after he recused himself, the consolidated cases were assigned to the 21st Division of the CA and raffled off to Justice Elihu A. Ybañez as the ponente. However, before Justice Ybañez could resolve the cases, a reorganization of the CA took place. Per Office Order No. 34-10-ABR, Justice Lloren was designated as senior member of the 21st Division, together with Justice Romulo V. Borja, as chairman, and Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, as junior member. The consolidated cases were then raffled off to Justice Borja as the new ponente. Justice Borja prepared a Resolution naming Justice Lloren and Justice Hernando as the other members. The Resolution was then forwarded to his office for signature.
Justice Lloren further explained that considering that it had already been more than two years since he inhibited himself from the consolidated cases, he had forgotten the case numbers as well as the names of the parties. In fact, he was under the impression that these cases had already been resolved by another Division of the CA. He asserted that signing the Resolution dated January 28, 2011 was truly an honest mistake, which did not prejudice complainant as the case was still for completion and not yet submitted for decision. Lastly, Justice Lloren stated that he had apologized to complainant who, in turn, accepted his apology in a letter dated June 16, 2011.
After careful consideration of the above submissions, the Court finds no sufficient grounds to sanction Justice Lloren for signing the January 28, 2011 Resolution in Consolidated Cases CA-G.R. SP Nos. 01883-MIN, 02060-MIN, 02079-MIN, and 02215-MIN.
First, the Court notes that complainant failed to comply with the requirements under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. 01-8-10-SC, which provides that "[proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity." In the present case, the letter-complaint is not verified by complainant.
More important, to the mind of the Court, it appears that the mishap complained of is an honest mistake and a product of excusable inadvertence on the part of Justice Lloren. To be held liable, it is necessary that Justice Lloren be found to have been motivated by bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose.
Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself. Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There must be sufficient evidence to prove the same, as well as a manifest showing of bias and partiality stemming from an extrajudicial source or some other basis. A judge's conduct must be clearly indicative of arbitrariness and prejudice before it can be stigmatized as biased and partial.[4] There being no substantial evidence or even any argument or allegation to show bad faith on the part of Justice Lloren, the Court has no option but to dismiss the complaint against him.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against Court of Appeals Justice Edgardo T. Lloren for lack of merit. However, Justice Lloren is hereby WARNED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties."
Brion, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 2.[2] Id. at 15-17.
[3] Id. at 5-11.
[4] Reyes v. Paderanga, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1973, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 244, 253.