ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2030-RTJ. February 7, 2005]
LLOVIDO vs. ESTRADA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 7 2005.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2030-RTJ (Armando G. Llovido vs. Judge Estrella T. Estrada, RTC, Branch 83, Quezon City.)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated November 22, 2004, to wit:
REASON FOR AGENDA : The following were filed with the Office of the Court Administrator:
1. VERIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT dated 25 June 2004 (with annexes) of Armando Llovido charging Judge Estrella Estrada with violation of Section 3, par. 4 of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court for Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Order relative to Criminal Case No. Q 03-116823 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Jacinto Uy, et al." for Violation of P.D. 957 (selling subdivision lots without a license to sell).
Complainant is one of the compulsory heirs of Julian Llovido, accused in the aforementioned criminal case.
Complainant narrates that on 27 November 2003, counsel for the accused filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash Information and Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause stating, inter alia , that accused Julian Llovido has already been dead several years before the alleged sale transaction occurred, hence, he could not be held liable anymore for the crime imputed against him. Complainant contends that despite this information, respondent judge still issued an Order dated 20 May 2004 finding probable cause against Julian Llovido.
Complainant asserts that although it is no longer possible for Julian Llovido to be incarcerated, still his inclusion in the criminal complaint as ordered by respondent judge has greatly affected his family, not to mention the fact that the reputation of the accused as well as the members thereof have been tarnished.
Complainant further claims that respondent judge committed grave injustice and an abdication of duty to protect the innocent when the latter deliberately ignored the assertion of their counsel that the public prosecutor has no evidence to indict the late Julian Llovido.
2. In her COMMENT dated 30 July 2003 (with annexes), respondent Judge Estrella Estrada admits the facts stated in the complaint.
Respondent, however, explains that the allegation in the omnibus motion that the accused Llovido was already dead before the subject transaction happened was not supported by any document to prove the fact of said death. Respondent asserts that since the alleged death of accused Llovido is yet to be proved and established, she found the existence of probable cause against all the accused and resolved the said motion in the negative as a mere allegation thereof cannot be accepted as the gospel truth. She further contends that it was only in the instant complaint that complainant attached a machine reproduction of the death certificate of his father.
EVALUATION: The instant administrative complaint is bereft of merit.
As can be gleaned from the records of the case, as well as the respective allegations raised by the parties, it is evident that the acts being complained of relate to the propriety of the order issued by respondent judge resolving the omnibus motion filed by the counsel of the accused Llovido and finding the existence of a probable cause against the latter in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116823. Thus, the same refers to the exercise of respondent judge of her judicial discretion. Accordingly, the issue could best be resolved by availing of the judicial remedies provided for under the Rules of Court and not by way of an administrative complaint as in this case.
Time and again, this Court has held that judges should be free from intimidation and the fear of civil, criminal, or administrative sanctions for the acts done by them in the performance of their duties and functions. The prosecution of a judge is justified only if there is a final determination by a competent court of the unjustly character of the challenged judgment or order and evidence of malice, bad faith, ignorance or inexcusable negligence in rendering his judgment or order. (Balayo vs. Judge Buban, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-1477, 09 September 1999) For obviously, if subsequent developments prove the judge's challenged act to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all. (Spouses Guzman vs. Judge Pamintuan , A.M. No. RTJ-02-1736, 26 June 2003)
It has been consistently held by this Court that if any error in the operation of her own individual view of the case, appreciation of facts and her understanding of the applicable matter was committed by the respondent, such an error is merely an error of judgment for which a judge may not be held administratively liable in the absence of a showing of bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose. (Dela Cruz vs. Concepcion , 253 SCRA 597, 607)
Further, such matter could be properly raised and addressed by way of certiorari, and not in an administrative disciplinary proceeding. Accordingly, an inquiry into the administrative liability may be made only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with finality. (Caguioa, et al. vs. Judge Lavina, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1553, 02 November 2002)
RECOMMENDATION : RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED for the consideration of the Honorable Court is the recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against Judge Estrella T. Estrada of RTC, Branch 83, Quezon City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Court agrees with the OCA.
It must be stressed that an administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonesty. [1] cralaw The remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. [2] 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. [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
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against Judge Estrella T. Estrada.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw De Guzman v. Dy, 405 SCRA 311 (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).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
