ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1979-RTJ.� October 13, 2004]
MANGA vs. SORIAO
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 13 2004.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1979-RTJ (Salvador Q. Manga, Jr. vs. Acting Presiding Judge Pedro R. Soriao, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Ligao City, Clerk of Court Juanita Pontanal, RTC-OCC, Ligao City and Acting Branch Clerk of Court Teresita P. Abapo, RTC, Branch 13, Ligao City.)
R E S O L U T I O N
In a Verified Complaint dated February 20, 2003, Salvador Q. Manga, Jr. charged Judge Pedro R. Soriao in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 13, Ligao City, Atty. Juanita Pontanal in her capacity as Clerk of Court, RTC, Ligao City, and Teresita P. Abapo in her capacity as Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 13, RTC, Ligao City, with gross ignorance of law and procedures.
As summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) the core issues stemmed from the following:
On 30 July 2003, a Decision was rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Br. 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, declaring herein complainant's marriage to Anicia N. Guerrero, which was contracted in 1998 at the MTC of Victoria, Laguna, before then Presiding Judge Francisco J. Go, null and void. Anicia Guerrero did not interpose an appeal from the said Decision.
Among the properties acquired by herein complainant and Anicia Guerrero during the period of cohabitation was a 920 sq. m. lot located in Camalig, Albay. On 23 October 2003, complainant filed a Petition for Liquidation, Partition and Distribution before the RTC of Ligao City.
Respondent Clerk of Court Pontanal assessed the filing fee in the total amount of P5,721.60. However, she did not assign the Petition to a Family Court. Instead, she had the same raffled to Br. 13, a heinous crimes court.
On 05 November 2003, respondent Judge Soriao issued an Order dismissing complainant's Petition on the ground that the action for liquidation, partition and distribution of properties being an immediate consequence of the Decision declaring complainant's marriage void, the petition should have been filed, as an ancillary proceeding, with the Family Court which rendered the Decision.
On 14 November 2003, complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order of dismissal but the same was denied for lack of merit.
Hoping that respondents will correctly interpret and apply the pertinent laws and Rules of Court by re-raffling the petition to a Family Court and thereafter issuing summons to Anicia Guerrero, complainant filed a Manifestation and Motion to Take a Second Look dated 15 December 2003. The same was, likewise, denied.
Based on the foregoing, complainant submits that respondents should be held administratively liable for gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law and the corresponding penalty meted against them. [1] cralaw
In her Comment dated May 13, 2004, respondent Abapo alleges that in cases dismissed outright by the court, there is no longer a need for summons to be served, as such an order of dismissal does not warrant the same.
Respondent Pontanal alleges that the matter of raffling of cases is not within the powers and jurisdiction of the Clerk of Court, and that she merely assists in the conduct of the same. She pointed out that there is no designated Family Court in Ligao City, thus, rendering the allegation that Special Proceedings No. 405 was raffled to a heinous crimes court without merit. The respondent also points out that once a court takes jurisdiction over a case, it becomes subject to the judicial power and authority of the presiding judge thereon.
For his part, the respondent judge maintains that the remedy of the complainant is judicial in nature, and that the complainant has, in fact, commenced a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the validity of the questioned order. The respondent claims that the Order dated November 5, 2003 as well as the succeeding orders denying the two motions for reconsideration thereof were issued in good faith, and submits that the pending petition with the Court of Appeals renders the instant administrative complaint moot and academic,
In its Report dated August 30, 2004, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of merit on the ground that a party is not permitted to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora, and that respondent Pontanal could not be faulted for merely performing her duties as Clerk of Court. The charges against respondent Abapo should, likewise, be dismissed for her duties are ministerial in nature; thus, she cannot issue summons in the absence of an order for her to do so.
The Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be meritorious.
As a matter of 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. 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. In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction. [2] cralaw The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. [3] cralaw Thus, not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice. [4] cralaw
It must be stressed that administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to the aggrieved parties and the same has not yet been resolved with finality. Until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether the respondent judge is administratively liable. [5] cralaw If the complainant fails to prove the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. [6] cralaw
Accordingly, the instant administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo. pp. 56-57.
[2] cralaw Casta �os v. Esca �o, Jr., 251 SCRA 174 (1995).
[3] cralaw Abdula v. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1 (2000).
[4] cralaw Rallos v. Gako, Jr., 328 SCRA 324 (2000); Calleja v. Santelices, 328 SCRA 61 (2000).
[5] cralaw Atty. Alberto P. Quinto v. Judge Gregorio S. Vios, MTC, Kapatagan, Lanao Del Norte, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1551, May 21, 2004.
[6] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Emilio B. Legaspi, RTC, Iloilo City, Br. 22, 405 SCRA 514 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
