[ A.M. No. RTJ-99-1502. February 28, 2000]

ALFREDO C. RAFFIÑAN, JR., vs. JUDGE VICTORINO U. MONTECILLO.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28, 2000.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1502 (Alfredo C. Raffiñan, Jr., vs. Judge Victorino U. Montecillo.)

Alfredo Raffiñan, Jr. is one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. CEB 11134 entitled "Selverio Bojos and Alfredo C. Raffiñan vs. Spouses Ernesto Torrano and Betty Torano" for damages with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. In the instant administrative case, it is alleged that on February 17, 1999 his counsel received a copy of a Decision dated January 15, 1999penned by respondent Judge Victorino Montecillo of the Regional trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 57, in connection with the said Civil Case No. 11134, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgement is hereby rendered ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs moral damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS and attorney's fees of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS."

On February 19, 1999, Rodrigo Jongoy, the court process server, allegedly "forcely withdrew" (sic) the above-decision and replaced it with another also dated January 15, 1999, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgement is hereby rendered ordering Plaintiffs to pay defendants moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos and Attorney's fees of Fifteen Thousand Pesos. The properties attached by the Sheriff by virtue of the writ of preliminary attachment issued in the case are hereby lifted ordered released to the plaintiffs."

On February 22, 1999, respondent issued an "Amended Decision", the dispositive portion of which now reads:

"WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgement is hereby rendered ordering plaintiffs to pay defendants moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos and Attorney's Fee of Fifteen Thousand Pesos. The properties attached by the sheriff by virtue of the writ of preliminary attachment issued in the case are hereby ordered released to the defendants."

Complainants alleged that there was no Notice of Appeal nor Motion for Reconsideration filed from the first decision rendered in the case. The respondent allegedly never conducted a hearing "in his switching of decision." Hence, this complaint against respondent judge for:

"a.) Grave misconduct of his Judicious obligation to the bench;

b.) For unbecoming a Judge;

c.) Grave abuse of discretion;

d.) FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS;

e.) Gross Ignorance of the law;

f.) Moral turpitude and negligence in the dereliction of his judicious duty."

In his Comment dated May 6, 1999, respondent judge averred that the copy received by complainant's counsel on February 17, 1999 was not the correct copy because the clerk in charge of civil cases failed to replace the last page with the final copy of the decision. Upon instructions, Rodrigo Jongoy replaced the copy with a correct one. He branded complainant's allegation that Jongoy "forcely withdraw" the decision as an exaggeration. Respondent judge further claimed that a perusal of the body of the decision would reveal no other conclusion than that the trial court found in favor of the defendants and not the plaintiffs therein. Hence, upon discovery of the error committed in the last word of the decision, respondent issued an amended decision by changing the word "Plaintiff" to "Defendants" to make the last sentence consistent with the court's findings in favor of defendants.

Complainant, in his Reply, contended that the respondent never issued an order for the withdrawal of the first decision. It was alleged that the first decision was never recalled and their Ex-Parte Motion for Writ of Execution of the first decision was denied on March 8, 1999.

The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. The Office of the Court Administrator found that the body of the three (3) decisions issued by respondent judge were uniformly written and will not cast any doubt and/or create a presumption that the court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Moreover, the second copy of the subject decision was served on complainant's counsel on February 19, 1999, while the first copy was served on February 17, 1999 the latter not having yet attained finality. It is for this reason that the Ex-Parte motion for Writ of Execution filed by defendants was denied by respondent judge. Further, the third and "Amended Decision" was issued on February 22, 1999, which is still within the ambit of the exercise of judicial function of the respondent. The Office of the Court Administrator pointed out that it is imperative that certain typographical and/or clerical errors in the decision be rectified in order that the body thereof and dispositive portion be harmonized.1 p.5, thereof, citing Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. IAC, 280 SCRA 567. The Court Administrator recommended that respondent judge be admonished to be more careful and circumspect in the performance of his judicial functions.

We hereby adopt the findings and recommendation of the Court Administrator.

The Court is fully aware that not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his duties is subject to censure.2 People vs. Gacott, Jr., 242 SCRA 514. As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous.3 Heirs of the late Nasser D. Yasin vs. Felix, 250 SCRA 545; Chin vs. Gustilo, 247 SCRA 175; Alvarado vs. Laquindanum, 245 SCRA 501.

It should be noted that the error in the dispositive portion of the decisions was committed not once but twice which, as correctly pointed out by the Court Administrator, constitutes negligence on the part of the respondent judge. A judge must not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.4 Maliwat vs. CA, 256 SCRA 718. It is the duty of the members of the bench to avoid any impression of impropriety to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary.5 Nazareno vs. Almario, 268 SCRA 657. Extreme care should be exercised in the formulation of the dispositive portion of a decision because it is this portion that is to be executed once the decision becomes final. The adjudication of rights and obligations of the parties and the dispositions made as well as the directions and instructions given by the court in the premises in conformity with the body of the decision, must all be spelled out clearly, distinctly and unequivocably, leaving absolutely, leaving absolutely no room for dispute, debate or interpretation.6 Padua vs. Robles, 66 SCRA 486.

Moreover, respondent should not blame his personnel for "failing to replace the last page with the final copy." A judge cannot simply take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel, for the latter are not the guardians of the former's responsibility.7 Lagatic vs. Peñas, Jr., 276 SCRA 46.

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Court Administrator, respondent is hereby ADMONISHED to be more careful and circumspect in the performance of his judicial functions.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com