ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1865-RTJ.
MANICAD vs. TIPON
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1865-RTJ (Conrado L. Manicad vs. Judge Artemio S. Tipon, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, em>Manila .)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) dated
REASON FOR AGENDA: On 16 September 2003, Atty. Conrado L. Manicad filed with the Office of the Court Administrator his VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT subscribed and sworn to on 10 September 2003 charging Judge Artemio S. Tipon with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Conduct Unbecoming a Judge, Bias and Partiality and Abuse of Authority relative to a case which originated from the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Case No. 09-97-5759 entitled "F.U. Juan Corporation, et al. vs. Rafael Roxas and Heirs of Eugenia Roxas, Inc. ('HEVRT for brevity)," now docketed as Civil Case No. 01-699671.
The Facts of Civil Case No. 01-699671:
The aforementioned civil case, which was endorsed to the Manila RTC (Branch 46) in January 2001, is a petition for the dissolution of HEVRI and the appointment of its receiver with a prayer for the issuance of preliminary injunction. Among the allegations presented by petitioner F.U. Juan Corporation was the mismanagement of HEVRI through unauthorized and fraudulent disbursements of funds by one of its officers, Rafael J. Roxas.
During the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction,
Judge Artemio S. Tipon
issued an Order dated
On
On
On
On
Pursuant to the Order dated
In its Letter dated
On
A formal hearing was scheduled on
On
On
In October 2002, the respondents filed an Urgent Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals questioning the handling of the contempt proceedings by Judge Tipon.
Considering that the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals on
On
The next scheduled hearing on the contempt charge was on
The hearing of the main case was set on P30,000.00) and sentenced to three (3) days of imprisonment.
The issuance of warrants of arrest against Atty. Manicad
and the respondents was ordered.
The Charges
The complainant, Atty. Conrado L. Manicad, charges Judge Artemio S. Tipon with (1) gross ignorance of the law; (2) conduct unbecoming a member of the bench; (3) bias and partiality; and (4) abuse of authority.
The charge of gross ignorance of the law is based on Judge Tipon's orders with respect to the contempt case against
Atty. Manicad and his clients (respondents in the
civil case). At the hearing on
Atty. Manicad also claims that he
received no formal notice of the hearing on the main case scheduled on P30,000.00) and
ordered his clients arrested.
Atty. Manicad declares that ordering his arrest and that of his clients for "failure to appear despite notice when, in truth and in fact, there was no notice specially as far as the three defendants are concerned is GROSS IGNORANCE of the law if only for his failure to realize that he did not have that such power of arrest unless there is personal notice."
Atty. Manicad, likewise, stresses that considering their case is civil in nature, Judge Tipon should have, at the most, either declared the former's clients in default, considered the case submitted for decision, or forfeited any rights his clients were entitled to enforce had they been present at the 15 August 2003 hearing instead of ordering all of them in contempt and issuing warrants for their arrest. Atty. Manicad contends that for such an imaginary infraction, the imprisonment and fine imposed upon him is "GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW pure and simple."
With respect to the charge of conduct unbecoming a member of the bench, Atty. Manicad charges Judge Tipon with "vindictiveness, tyranny and inhuman despotism" in denying the motion to quash the warrants for the arrest of his clients considering that the latter were not furnished notice of the 15 August 2003 hearing. The complainant accuses the respondent judge of having purposely delayed the resolution of the motion until his clients were arrested and subjected to the indignities the complainant himself suffered when he was detained for three (3) days. ,
In addition, when Atty. Manicad was arrested and imprisoned, a motion to fix bail was filed on the second day of the complainant's imprisonment in order to spare him another day of detention. According to Atty. Manicad, the hearing for the motion was reset three (3) days after it was filed, "as if the Court were confronted with a petition for bail for an unbailable crime" which resulted in his completion of the three-day detention without the court being able to decide whether or not he had the right to bail.
As to the charge of bias and partiality, Atty. Manicad
cites the actuation of Judge Tipon during the hearing
on
The charge of abuse of authority centers on the undue exercise by Judge Tipon of his contempt powers. Atty. Manicad argues that to be adjudged in contempt by the court over the failure of a counsel and/or party to appear in a civil case is not only too drastic a sanction but improper, particularly when the fundamental requirement of a notice of hearing is absent. He maintains that one who is held guilty of contempt has the right to appeal and the constitutional right to bail, both of which was denied him by the respondent judge.
For having exercised his power of contempt in such arbitrary manner, the complainant, Atty. Manicad, thus, prays for the dismissal of the respondent judge from the judiciary.
The Comment on the Charges
In his 2nd Indorsement dated
Judge Tipon explains that on
On
Judge Tipon charges Atty. Manicad with having violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics and his oath of office in his determined effort to thwart the audit of the books of account of HEVRI under the management of his clients. The Canons of Judicial Ethics mandate that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court and require him to observe the rules of procedure and not misuse them to defeat the end of justice. Aside from the obvious delaying tactics employed by Atty. Manicad, he has, likewise, advised his clients to deliberately disobey the subpoenas by advising them not to attend the hearings.
As to the claim of Atty. Manicad that he
received no formal notice of the
Judge Tipon debunks Atty. Manicad's claim that the issuance of the warrants of arrest
against the latter and his clients stemmed from their failure to appear during
the
With respect to the charge of Atty. Manicad that Judge Tipon always interrupted him, never allowing him to finish what he was going to say and was clearly biased for and partial to the adverse party, the latter contends that he merely told Atty. Manicad to stop repeating the same arguments that he has made before. Judge Tipon does not deny that his patience was wearing thin because of the patent dilatory tactics of the complainant.
Finally, Judge Tipon argues that if he were truly guilty of the charges made by the complainant, then the Court of Appeals would have not upheld all his Orders, including those involving the contempt case against the complainant's clients.
Contending that the acts complained of have no factual or legal basis, Judge Tipon prays for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. He also urges that Atty. Manicad be disbarred for violating the Canons of Judicial Ethics and his oath of office.
EVALUATION: After a thorough review of the records of the case, this Office believes that Judge Tipon cannot be held liable of the acts complained of as to warrant an administrative sanction. From the aforestated facts, it appears that the respondent judge faithfully complied with the procedure on contempt outlined in Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court contrary to the claims of the complainant.
The orders issued by the respondent judge are very clear and
straight to the point, precluding any occasion for misunderstanding. The arrest
warrants were issued not because of the non-appearance of the complainant and
his clients during the hearing on the main case but because of their continuous
refusal to obey the orders including the subpoenas issued by the court. The
complainant insists that the respondent judge showed his ignorance of the law
and acted with abuse of authority when the latter ordered the issuance of
warrants of arrest against the complainant and the latter's clients for their
non-appearance at the hearing on the main case on
The clarity with which the respondent judge was able to show through his comment together with the corresponding documentary evidence exposes the baseless character of the complainant's action against him. After a perusal of the entire records of the case, it cannot be said that the respondent judge rendered himself, in any way, liable for any disciplinary action. It is the complainant who has made himself vulnerable to the very same accusations he has hurled against the respondent judge.
In fact, no less than the Court of Appeals stated that the actions
of Judge Tipon are in order. It must be noted that on
It is surely the Court of Appeals decision that propelled the complainant to file the administrative complaint against the respondent judge a month later as a last resort to circumvent the impending audit which his clients have so desperately avoided.
It is, therefore, apparent that the instant administrative complaint was filed to further delay the proceedings. This observation is proven by the fact that it has been two (2) years and nine (9) months since the order was issued to audit the books of account of HEVRI. It cannot also be discounted that the filing of the complaint was a puny vindictive attempt on the part of Atty. Manicad for having been, in his belief, wrongfully incarcerated as a consequence of his having been declared in contempt of court.
RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, we respectfully submit for the consideration of the Honorable Court the following recommendations:
1.That the instant administrative complaint against Judge Artemio S. Tipon be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
2.That Judge Tipon be REQUIRED to formalize his charge against Atty. Conrado L. Manicad for causing the filing of this complaint and subjecting respondent judge to the trouble and harassment of an unfounded accusation and for conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession.
The findings and recommendation of the OCA are well taken.
It must be stressed that the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are ordinarily 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 Thus, disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against magistrates do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. An inquiry into their civil, criminal and/or administrative liability may be made only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with finality. In fine, only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. [2] 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. [3] cralaw
As observed by the OCA, the Court of Appeals itself in its
Decision dated
Indeed, while it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against judges and other court personnel, it is also our duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [6] cralaw
The Court has recognized the need to protect members of the
Judiciary from clearly unfounded or malicious administrative or criminal cases
filed merely for purposes of harassment, and issued A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC
[7]
cralaw
which took effect on
1. If upon an informal preliminary inquiry by the Office of the Court Administrator, an administrative complaint against any Justice of the Court of Appeals or Sandiganbayan or any Judge of the lower courts filed in connection with a case in court is shown to be clearly unfounded and baseless and intended to harass the respondent, such a finding should be included in the report and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. If the recommendation is approved or affirmed by the Court, the complainant may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. If the complainant is a lawyer, he may further be required to show cause why he or she should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court.
Considering that the complaint in the instant case was filed before the effectivity thereof, the Court in the instant case resolves to ADOPT the recommendation of the OCA and REQUIRE Judge Artemio S. Tipon to formalize his charges against Atty. Conrado L. Manicad for causing the filing of this complaint and subjecting him to the trouble and harassment of an unfounded accusation, and for conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession.
The administrative charges against Judge Artemio S. Tipon are DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Balsamo v. Suan, 411 SCRA 189 (2003).
[2] cralaw Cruz v. Iturralde, 402 SCRA 65 (2003).
[3] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 400 SCRA 32 (2003).
[4] cralaw Entitled Rafael J. Roxas and the Heirs of Eugenia V. Roxas, Inc., v. Hon. Artemio S. Tipon, F.U Juan Corporation and Fernando U. Juan and Rafael J. Roxas, Guillermo Roxas and Ma. Eugenia Vallarte v. Hon. Judge Artemio Tipon. These were consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[5] cralaw Rollo, pp. 258-259.
[6] cralaw Cruz v. Iturralde, supra.
[7] cralaw Entitled "Resolution Prescribing Measures To Protect Members of The Judiciary From Baseless and Unfounded Administrative Complaints."
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
