ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1978-RTJ. February 7, 2005]
GERONIMO vs. ORTIGUERRA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 7 2005.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1978-RTJ (Juanito Geronimo and Dionisia Santos vs. Manuel R. Ortiguerra, RTC, Branch 8, Malolos, Bulacan. )
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated November 23, 2004, to wit:
SUBJECT MATTER: OCA IPI No. 04-1978-RTJ. Juanito Geronimo, et al. vs. Judge Manuel R. Ortiguerra, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Malolos City, Bulacan.
REASON FOR THE AGENDA: A VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated 19 March 2004 was filed before this Office by complainants Juanito Geronimo and Dionisia Santos, charging respondent Judge Manuel R. Ortiguerra with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Manifest Partiality relative to the case entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Carlito Geronimo and Issuance of Letter Administration" docketed as Special Proceeding No. 128-M-03 pending before his sala.
Complainants are the Oppositors in the above-entitled case who claim that they are the rightful possessors and owners of Villa Cristina Resort, which was included as part of the estate of the decedent in the above-entitled case. They allegedly filed a separate action for the cancellation of title involving said resort, entitled "Juanito Geronimo, et al. vs. The Heirs of Carlito M. Geronimo, et al." docketed as Civil Case No. 99-M-2003 before Branch 17, RTC, Malolos City, Bulacan.
Complainants aver that on 30 July 2003, they filed their Opposition to the Petition and application of petitioner to be appointed as Special Administrator of the estate of the deceased and urged respondent to relegate the authority to determine the issue of ownership and possession of the Villa Cristina Resort to RTC Branch 17 of Malolos City, Bulacan. It is complainant's contention that Branch 17 is the proper court to settle the issue with finality and conclusiveness.
On 12 August 2003, respondent appointed petitioner as Special Administrator of the estate of the deceased Carlito Geronimo and ordered petitioner to take possession and charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits and estate of the deceased such as the Villa Cristina Resort, vehicle and jewelries.
On 19 August 2003, respondent subsequently issued a Letter of Administration in favor of petitioner. On even date, by virtue of said Letter of Administration and the Order dated 12 August 2003, petitioner, his counsel and the branch Sheriff marched in conspiracy to the Villa Cristina Resort and tried to dispossess the complainants of their property. Complainants called the police for assistance. Consequently, petitioner and his company, who were intimidated by the presence of the police, left the premises of Villa Cristina Resort.
On 20 August 2003, petitioner filed a Motion to Direct the Branch Sheriff Anew to Place the Petitioner in Possession of the Estate of Carlito Geronimo, specifically the Villa Cristina Resort. Complainants filed their Opposition thereto on 8 September 2003 and simultaneously filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings before the probate court (RTC, Branch 8) to give way to the action pending before RTC, Branch 17, which was denied by respondent on 4 November 2003.
On 24 November 2003, petitioner filed a Manifestation requesting that the branch Sheriff be directed anew to place petitioner in possession of the estate of the deceased Carlito Geronimo. Complainants filed their Counter-Manifestation on 10 December 2003.
On 6 February 2004, respondent granted the request of the petitioner. The branch Sheriff and some twenty (20) armed individuals on 2 March 2004 executed the said order. Complainants claim that when they refused to vacate Villa Cristina Resort, the branch Sheriff and his company illegally padlocked and detained them inside with eighteen (18) other persons from 2 March 2004 to 11 March 2004.
On 3 March 2004, complainants filed a Petition for Certiorari and Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with the Court of Appeals, Sixth Division assailing the 6 February 2004 order of respondent. On 4 March 2004, the Court of Appeals, Sixth Division, granted their application for a preliminary mandatory injunction and directed respondents to file their Comment within ten (10) days from notice.
Complainants now accuse respondent of having committed grave abuse of authority amounting to gross ignorance of the law and manifest partiality in issuing the 6 February 2004 Order granting petitioner's motion to direct the branch Sheriff anew to place petitioner in possession of the estate of deceased Carlito Geronimo.
According to them, respondent's act of placing petitioner in actual possession of a properly possessed by a third person claiming rights adverse to the decedent is tantamount to adjudicating with finality the title and possession of said property in favor of the estate of the decedent in violation of well-settled rule and jurisprudence. They argue that while it may be true that the probate court may provisionally pass title on the subject properties purportedly covered by the decedent's estate for purposes of inclusion or exclusion from said estate, the court is not empowered to altogether award possession in favor of someone, in this case the Special Administrator. Respondent, therefore, overstepped his jurisdiction, and with gross ignorance of the law, he practically awarded with finality and conclusiveness the ownership and possession of Villa Cristina Resort in favor of the estate of the decedent by a mere motion.
Had it not been for the intercession of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Division, granting their application for the issuance of a preliminary injunction concerning the Order dated 6 February 2004, complainants aver that they would still be deprived of their liberty, proper food, electricity and other basic needs.
In his COMMENT dated 4 May 2004, respondent denies the accusations hurled against him.
Respondent alleges that in an Order dated 12 August 2003, he appointed petitioner as Special Administrator of the estate of the deceased Carlito Geronimo. In the said order, he directed petitioner among others to take possession and charge of the goods, chattels, rights and credits of the estate of the deceased such as the Villa Cristina Resort, vehicles, jewelries and other properties which may come to his possession or knowledge.
Claiming that the Oppositors (herein complainants) refused to comply with the above-mentioned order, petitioner on 21 August 2003 filed a motion praying that the branch Sheriff be directed anew to place him in possession of the estate of the deceased, specifically, Villa Cristina Resort.
The hearing of said Motion was scheduled on 25 August 2003. However, despite due notice complainants were not present during the hearing. On even date, respondent ordered the complainants to file their Comment. He, likewise, ordered petitioner to cite authorities in support of the relief they sought. The court granted the complainants' prayer for additional period of time within which to submit their Comment/Opposition until 11 September 2003. The court received their Comment on 16 September 2003.
On 12 September 2003, complainants filed a Petition for Certiorari with Urgent Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals assailing respondent's Order dated 12 August 2003. On 27 November 2003, the Court of Appeals, Third Division, dismissed the petition filed by complainants.
Respondent claims that complainants patently omitted to mention the fact that they have already filed a petition before the Court of Appeals assailing the court's Order dated 12 August 2003 where complainants argued their case extensively. On 27 November 2003, the Court of Appeals sustained the legality and propriety of his Order dated 12 August 2003. Moreover, the Third Division of said court denied their Motion for Reconsideration on 4 April 2004.
Respondent stresses that since his 6 February 2004 Order has no new mandate but was merely a reiteration of his 12 August 2003 Order, he cannot be held liable for gross ignorance of the law. He claims that no less than the Court of Appeals upheld the legality of his order.
On his alleged partiality, respondent points out that complainants omitted to mention the tedious proceedings that has transpired prior to the filing of the petitioner's Motion to Direct Deputy Sheriff to Place Petitioner in Possession of the Subject Property.
According to respondent, if he were partial to the petitioner, then he should have acted on the said Motion the moment herein complainants failed to file their comment on the said Motion. Instead, on several occasions, he granted complainants' motion for extension of time to file their pleadings in compliance with procedural due process.
He also explains that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the complainants concerning the 6 February 2004 Order only came to his attention on 4 March 2004 as he was on official leave from 1 to 3 March 2003. Moreover, complainants' counsel withdrew the said Motion for Reconsideration on 5 March 2004, which motion the court granted on even date. He avers that both parties were given ample opportunity to buttress their respective legal posturing on the matter.
Respondent maintains that he did not order the alleged padlocking of the complainants inside the Villa Cristina Resort. Assuming that there was, indeed, a padlocking of the complainants, respondent contends that he cannot be faulted thereto because his Order dated 6 February 2004 clearly mandates that the branch Sheriff to assist the petitioner by all lawful and legal means.
Finally, respondent stresses that while the Court of Appeals, Sixth Division, issued a preliminary mandatory injunction, the ruling was not adverse to his Orders dated 12 August 2003 and 6 February 2004 because its focus was the removal of the padlock as well as to ensure that no person shall be illegally detained at the Villa Cristina Resort.
In their REPLY dated 1 June 2004, complainants reiterate their accusation and assert that respondent cannot anchor his defense on the decision of the Court of Appeals, Third Division.
Complainants state that the decision of the Third Division concerns the matter of appointing petitioner as Special Administrator and the provisional inclusion of the purported properties of the deceased Carlito Geronimo in the inventory of his estate. According to them, said decision does not suggest that respondent should award possession of the properties provisionally included in the estate of the deceased in favor of the Special Administrator. On the contrary, the mandate of the decision of the Court of Appeals, Third Division, was that for respondent to give due deference to the annulment of title case pending before the RTC Branch 17 of Malolos City, Bulacan.
Moreover, they insist that respondent is privy to all the ugly things that happened to them during their illegal detention as respondent was apprised of their condition by the Sheriff by phone.
EVALUATION: The administrative complaint must fail.
Complainants assail the propriety of the Order dated 6 February 2004 of respondent which, in effect, allegedly adjudicated with finality the title and possession of the Villa Cristina Resort in favor of the estate of the decedent in Special Proceeding No. 128-M-03 by placing the Special Administrator in physical possession of said resort. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the said order was only a reiteration of his 12 August 2003 Order, which the Third Division of the Court of Appeals upheld on 27 November 2003.
The issue is clearly impressed with judicial character. If complainants believe that respondent committed error in issuing the assailed order, relief cannot be had through administrative proceedings but in a proper judicial remedy provided in the Rules of Court (Galan Realty Co. Inc. vs. Arranz, 237 SCRA 776, 777). In fact, records reveal that complainants had already availed of such judicial remedy when they assailed the subject order before the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari with Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. Upon verification from the Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, it was discovered that said petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82539 is still pending resolution.
In view thereof, and pursuant to the ruling in Flores vs. Abesamis (275 SCRA 302, 306) that only after the proper judicial authorities should have spoken with finality that the door to an inquiry into respondent's criminal, civil and administrative liability may be opened or closed, complainants must wait for the outcome of said petition, and only if the results thereof would warrant an administrative complaint be filed against respondent.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is the recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against Judge Manuel R. Ortiguerra be DISMISSED for being judicial in nature.
We fully agree with the OCA.
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. [1] cralaw Moreover, 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. [2] cralaw Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. [3] 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. [4] cralaw
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. [5] cralaw
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Manuel R. Ortiguerra for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar , 415 SCRA 377 (2003).
[2] cralaw Balsamo v. Suan , 411 SCRA 189 (2003).
[3] cralaw Cruz v. Iturralde , 402 SCRA 65 (2003).
[4] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 400 SCRA 32 (2003).
[5] cralaw Cruz v. Iturralde, 402 SCRA 65 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
