ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-1055-RTJ. November 27, 2000]
SPS. NAVARRO, et al., vs. JUDGE CABUCO-ANDRES
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your Information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 27 2000.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-1055-RTJ (Spouses Alberto and Corazon Navarro, et al., vs. Judge Stella Cabuco-Andres.)
Spouses Alberto and Corazon Navarro filed this administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Judge Stella Cabuco-Andres, Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) summed up the allegations of the spouses Navarro (complainants) against Judge Stella Cabuco-Andres (respondent judge) as follows:
The Navarros, who are in the construction business, allege that they were contracted by Spouses Manolo and Stella Andres to do renovation work in their house. Before the work began, complainants made it clear that it will not be within the scope of their undertaking to secure the required building permit themselves. Atty. Manolo Andres assured them that they can start the renovation even without the building permit and that they will not encounter any problem in this respect allegedly because he has connections with the Office of the Barangay Chairman and with their Homeowners' Association.
Complainants admitted that they were not able to complete the work within the stipulated time but explained that the delay was due to the absence of the required building permit, the additional work asked of them by Spouses Andres and the failure of the latter to purchase the particular tiles they preferred to be installed. They claimed that Spouses threatened to file criminal and civil against them and declared that they will use all their power to send them to jail.
Complainants professed that they had no intention of abandoning the work. In fact, their men never stopped working and they delivered construction materials to the site despite the fact that spouses Andres had so many times berated them and their workers.
On 12 July 1999, complainants received a letter from the lawyer of the spouses Andres inquiring about the building permit which they allegedly promise to secure. The complainants again received a letter on 17 July 1999 from the same lawyer directing them to return the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) which the spouses claimed to have entrusted to them supposedly for the building permit application.
Three (3) days thereafter, complainants' foreman/carpenter Jerry Tallion informed them through phone that respondent's husband Atty. Manolo Andres had ordered him and the other workers to vacate the site since he has contracted another group who will take over the renovation work. Atty. Andres also asked Tallion to sign a document stating that they voluntarily left the site.
The complainants further claimed that the Andreses did not allow them to take with them equipment and tools which cost about One Hundred Sixteen Thousand and Twenty-Five Pesos (P116,025.00) and materials amounting to Thirty-Nine Thousand and Three Hundred Fifty-Seven Pesos (P39,357.00).
According to complainants, all these acts of Judge Andres constitute a violation of Section 4 paragraph (c) of R.A. No.6713, particularly in reference to the provision which provides that public officials shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, morals xxx and public interest. 1 Rollo , pp. 1-2.
In her comment, respondent judge prays for the dismissal of the complaint as the same is a mere rehash of the criminal (robbery and coercion) and civil (replevin) complaints already filed by the complainants against respondent judge and her husband. The comment, as summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator, stated thus:
Judge Andres alleged that during the last week of January 1999, the complainants agreed to undertake renovation works in their house for a consideration of almost Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). considering the substantial amount involved and the extent of the project, they were told by the complainants that there was a need to secure first a building permit from the from the local government of Las Piñas City which would entail an expense of approximately between Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and Twenty-Five Thousand (P25,000.00).
According to respondent judge, complainants volunteered to secure the permit for them. Since she and her husband were both busy with their respective jobs and believing complainants' representation that they were knowledgeable and competent in the field of construction work and in securing building permits, entrusted to complainants the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) with the obligation to return the same within one week therefrom together with the building plans in case complainants fails to secure the necessary permit.
On 16 February 1999, renovation work started and complainant falsely informed spouses Andres that they have already obtained the required building permit. When complainant failed to finish the renovation work within the agreed period, spouses Andres repeatedly demanded completion of the project. Because the project was not completed, they next demanded that building permit together with all the plans, documents and papers relative to the project be turned over to them so that they can properly take over the project, but spouses Navarro refused and failed to comply. Upon verification with the City Engineer's Office of Las Piñas City, spouses Andres discovered that there was no building permit relative to the renovation work.
In view of complainants failure to return the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00), respondent judge and her husband filed a case for estafa against the Navarro's before the RTC of Las Piñas City.
According to Judge Andres, the complaint of spouses Navarro is a mere futile attempt to retaliate against her and her husband for the legal action they took against the Navarro's wrongful and fraudulent acts. She added that spouses Navarro are motivated by ill will and vengeance in filing the letter-complaint because it is utterly false and devoid of factual basis. 2 Id., at 2-3.
After a careful perusal of the affidavit of complainants, 3 Id., at 6-9.the Court finds that their charge of serious misconduct against respondent judge is unwarranted. In the following cases, the Court defined what constitutes serious misconduct as follows:
In Amosco v. Magro - 4 73 SCRA 108 (1976).
Misconduct in office was authoritatively defined by Justice Tuazon in Lacson v. Lopez in these words: "Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer x x x x It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer, must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office x x x x." More specifically, in Buenaventura v. Benedicto, an administrative proceeding against a judge of the court of first instance, the present Chief Justice defines misconduct as referring "to a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. xxx" 5 Ibid . Citations omitted.
In Salcedo v. Inting - 6 91 SCRA 19 (1979).
It is to be noted that the acts of the respondent judge complained of have no direct relation with his official duties as City Judge. The misfeasance or malfeasance of a judge, to warrant disciplinary action must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of said judge. 7 Id ., at 27.
In Manuel vs. Calimag, Jr. - 8 307 SCRA 657 (1999).
[S]erious misconduct to warrant dismissal of a public officer from the service, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law. The misconduct must be serious, important, weighty, momentous and not trifling. The misconduct must simply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. The misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties. 9 Id., at 662-663.
The acts of respondent judge complained of by the complainants in this case were clearly not related to her judicial functions. In fact, the dispute of complainants, on one hand, and respondent judge and her husband, on the other, arose from a contract entered into by them, i.e., for complainants to undertake the renovation of the house of respondent judge and her husband. Complainants' allegations that, among others, respondent judge and her husband disallowed them (complainants) from finishing their obligation under the contract and wrongful detained their equipment, tools and materials, are proper subjects of a civil action. Complainants' remedy, therefore, may be obtained by filing the appropriate civil suits.
It is well to remind respondent judge, however, that she should be cautious in the conduct of all her dealings, whether official or otherwise. It cannot be overemphasized that "the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above suspicion. Indeed, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty." 10 Note 8.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the charge for serious misconduct against Judge Stella Cabuco-Andres of RTC, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court�
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
