ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1543-MTJ. July 28, 2004]
SUMAUANG vs. BANGALAN
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 28 2004.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1543-MTJ (Loreta Sumauang vs. Judge Felino U. Bangalan, Acting Presiding Judge Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2, Lal-Io, Cagayan.)
In a Sworn Complaint dated
The complainant averred that she was the complaining party in the aforementioned case, and that the respondent judge dismissed the said case without any legal or factual basis, as there was no evidence presented by the accused to disprove the charge against him. She claimed that the respondent deliberately failed to furnish a copy of the order of dismissal to the Office of the Prosecutor to prevent the latter from opposing the same. According to the complainant, the judge should not have issued an order of release and cancelled the bond of the accused, as the dismissal of the case had not yet become final, in view of the deliberate failure to furnish the Office of the Prosecutor a copy of such order of dismissal. The complainant further narrated that the respondent judge made "unnecessary schedules" of the hearings of the case, and issued summons requiring her presence in court even if there were no matters to be heard which needed her presence.
In his Comment dated March 30, 2004, the respondent denied the charges against him. He explained that the accused in the subject criminal case filed a motion to quash the information on the ground of prescription before they could be arraigned. As the said motion was impressed with merit, the respondent judge granted the same in an Order dated April 4, 2003. The prosecution moved for the reconsideration of the dismissal, while the accused refuted the arguments raised in the motion. The court denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit on January 23, 2004.
In a Manifestation dated April 23, 2004, the respondent judge informed the Court that the complainant eventually filed a petition for certiorari questioning the propriety and legality of the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 7762 before the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan. The respondent prayed that the case against him be dismissed, as "the filing of the petition before the RTC rendered moot and academic the administrative complaint."
The instant administrative case is dismissed.
As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative - for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. [1] cralaw To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. [2] cralaw As found by the Office of the Court Administrator in its Report and Recommendation dated May 27, 2004:
The complainant averred that the respondent had illegally dismissed the falsification case she filed without any legal and factual basis. However, a perusal of the records of the case shows that the respondent judge ordered the dismissal of the criminal case only after carefully weighing the issues, arguments and defenses presented by both the prosecution and the defense. We find no abuse of authority in the resolution of the case because both the prosecution and the defense were given the opportunity to submit their respective arguments. [3] cralaw
It must be stressed that the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the assailed decision or order, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction, [4] cralaw which the complainant did in this case.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Judge Felino U. Bangalan is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDlCHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�co, 251 SCRA 174 (1995).
[2] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 400 SCRA 32 (2003).
[3] cralaw Rollo , p. 31.
[4] cralaw Julie C, Pitney v. Judge Zeus C. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
