Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > March 2012 Resolutions > [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2303 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3416-RTJ) : March 12, 2012] MARIO S. ROMERO, COMPLAINANT VS. MANUEL C. LUNA, JR. EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 39, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO, :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 12 March 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2303 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3416-RTJ) Mario S. Romero, complainant vs. Manuel C. Luna, Jr. Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Br. 39, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, respondent.

This treats of the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution^[1] dated 14 November 2011 finding respondent Executive Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr. liable for violation of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC for "prescribing a new rate and dimension of font sizes for the publication of legal and judicial notices."

A re-examination of the facts of the case and the alleged violation of the issuance of the Supreme Court would show that this Court is actually called to resolve two (2) interrelated issues, namely: (1) whether or not an executive judge has the power to adjust publication rates even after an application for accreditation has long been approved; and (2) whether or not the rates determined at the time of the approval of accreditation may be altered during the five-year validity of such approved accreditation, both of which are clearly judicial in nature.

A further study of existing jurisprudence likewise revealed that herein complainant also filed similar complaints^[2] against Judge Recto A. Calabocal, then Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, and Vice-Executive Judge Tomas C. Leynes, Regional Trial Court, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro.

Perusal of the records of the administrative complaint against then Executive Judge Calabocal, which this Court DISMISSED for being judicial in nature,^[3] would disclose that, as in the present case, then Executive Judge Calabocal issued an Order prescribing new rates and printing formats to address concerns of litigants regarding the excessive and exorbitant fees that complainant charges in the publication of judicial and legal notices in the province of Oriental Mindoro.

Inasmuch as the aforesaid case clearly involved facts and issues identical to the case at bar, this Court is convinced that the Office of the Court Administrator should have disposed of the instant case in the same manner. Pertinent portions of its Report in the Calabocal case read: 

EVALUATION: The complaint has no merit. 

The complaint involves matters that are judicial in nature. Complainant Romero assails the wisdom underlying the questioned Order. Hence this Office refrains from resolving the following interrelated issues, to wit: (a) whether or not respondent Judge Calabocal has residual rate-fixing powers; (b) whether or not the previously approved rates [are] unalterable during its (five-year) period of effectivity. These issues should be threshed out in the proper judicial forum. 

Further, the appellate jurisdiction of this Office can only be invoked in a grant/denial or suspension/revocation of the accreditation.^[4] The issues raised here are not those enumerated. 

As a matter of policy "an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular." The administrative case cannot be used as a remedy to challenge the assailed order or decision rendered by the respondent judge nor cannot be used as a substitute for other judicial remedies.^[5] Errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies.^[6] 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.^[7]

All considered, the instant complaint against respondent Executive Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, should similarly be DISMISSED for being judicial in nature.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated 14 November 2011 holding respondent Executive Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro liable for violation of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant complaint against respondent is DISMISSED for being judicial in nature.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1]  Rollo, p. 70. The assailed Resolution reads: 

A.M. NO. RTJ-11-2303 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3416-RTJ] (Mario S. Romero vs. Executive Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr. Regional Trial Court, Br. 39, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro). - The Court NOTES the: (1) verified affidavit-complaint dated 12 April 2010 filed by Mario S. Romero against Executive Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr. Regional Trial Court (RTC), Br. 39, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, for violation of PD No. 1079 and A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC relative to the Order dated 9 July 2008 of respondent Executive Judge prescribing a new rate and dimension of font sizes for the publication of legal and judicial notices; and (2) comment dated 25 June 2010 of respondent Executive Judge. 

The Court RESOLVES to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator in the attached Report dated 29 June 2011. (Annex "A"). Accordingly, the Court  RE-DOCKETS the instant complaint as a regular administrative matter, HOLDS Executive Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr., RTC, Br. 39, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, LIABLE for violation of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC and ADMONISHES him with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

^[2] Comment dated 26 October 2010 of Judge Recto A. Calabocal, Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro in A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3517-RTJ (Mario S. Romero vs. Judge Recto A. Calabocal).

^[3] Resolution dated 21 September 2011 in A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3517-RTJ (Mario S. Romero vs. Judge Recto A. Calabocal)

^[4] Report dated 22 August 2011 of the Office of the Court Administrator in OCA IPI No. 10-3517-RTJ (Mario S. Romero v. Judge Recto A. Calabocal), page 2 citing Sec. 17, Rule VI, A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC (Re: Guidelines in the Accreditation of Newspapers and Periodicals and in the Distribution of Legal Notices and Advertisements for Publication) dated 7 November 2001.

^[5] Id. citing Cabelic v. Geronimo, A.M. No. OCA 1PI No. 00-948-MTJ, 27 May 2002, SC E-Library.

^[6] Id. at 3 citing Maylas, Jr. v. Sese, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2012, 4 August 2006, SC E-Library.

^[7] Id. citing Bello v. Diaz, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1311, 3 October 2003 further citing Flores v. Abesamis, A.M. No. SC-96-1, 10 July 1997, SC E-Library.