ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2042-RTJ.� January 31, 2005]
CLEMENTE vs. PORNILLOS
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 31 2005.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2042-RTJ (Dr. Gaudencio M. Clemente vs. Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos, RTC, Br. 10, Malolos, Bulacan.)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated November 9, 2004, to wit:
REASON FOR AGENDA : On 12 July 2004, this Office received the SWORN AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT of Dr. Gaudencio M. Clemente charging Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos of RTC, Branch 10, Malolos, Bulacan, with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment relative to Civil Cases Nos. 278-M-03 and 324-M-03.
Civil Case No. 324-M-03 is an appealed case from the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, entitled "Dr. Gaudencio M. Clemente, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Spouses Eduardo Celestino, et al., Defendants-Appellants" for Unlawful Detainer. On the other hand, Civil Case No. 278-M-03 (Celestino, et al. vs. Clemente, et al.) was filed in the respondent court seeking to annul the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order. The respondent judge jointly tried the cases because of the inter-related issues raised therein.
Complainant alleges that respondent committed a highly irregular act when she granted the defendant's prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) despite the fact that the petition was prepared and signed only by the defendants-petitioners (Sps. Celestino, et al.) without the assistance of a lawyer. Respondent also erred when the hearing for the TRO was conducted beyond seventy-two (72) hours from the filing of the TRO, a clear violation of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure. A Writ of Execution pending appeal was issued because petitioners Celestinos failed to file the supersedeas bond. Thus, the sheriff levied the property belonging to petitioner and the auction sale was scheduled after due notice.
Complainant claims that respondent judge issued another TRO without hearing or notice on 17 September 2003, the very day of the scheduled auction sale. Consequently, complainant's counsel informed him on 4 June 2004 that the respondent judge issued three (3) court orders, to wit:
a)�� Order dated 10 December 2003, submitting for Resolution Civil Case No. 324-M-03 without further arguments;
b)�� Order dated 19 January 2004, reversing the decision of MTC, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, in Civil Case No. 324-M-03; and
c)�� Joint Order dated 4 May 2004, in Civil Cases Nos. 278-M-03 and 324-M-03, recalling the last order in Civil Case No. 324-M-03 and further directing the respondent/appellee (herein� complainant) to submit his comment within 15 days from receipt.
In June 2004, complainant, through his counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Inhibition on the orders of the respondent judge. He submitted the motion with a prayer that the same be included in the calendar of the court on 25 June 2004. On the aforesaid date, complainant was surprised that no hearing was scheduled on his motion. Moreover, he was informed that, as early as 11 June 2004, the respondent judge had already denied his motion, including his prayer for inhibition even without conducting any hearing thereon.
In her COMMENT, respondent judge denies the charges of the complainant. According to the respondent, it is not true that petitioners Celestinos were not assisted by a counsel when they prepared the petition. The pleadings submitted by the petitioners clearly show that they were duly represented and assisted by a lawyer from the Public Attorneys' Office (PAO). She also claims that the seventy-two (72)-hour requirement under Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court does not apply to her since the aforesaid provision only applies to the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court.
While it is true that she granted the TRO on 14 July 2004, she denied the petition for injunction filed by petitioners Celestinos, hence, the auction sale was scheduled. To stop further enforcement of the execution, petitioners filed a Manifestation praying for the quashal of the writ of execution. Respondent acted on the Manifestation which the complainant called the second TRO. This, however, did not benefit the petitioners nor prejudice the complainant as it did not actually stop the execution, the levy and the registration of the auction sale by the sheriff.
Respondent judge asserts that the complainant had already raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari her orders reversing the decision of MTC, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, and denial of the complainant's Motion for Reconsideration and Inhibition. The Court of Appeals, 16th Division, in its Resolution dated 02 August 2004, DISMISSED the petition of the complainant.
Respondent judge avers that the charges of the complainant are baseless and the latter filed the present administrative complaint only because he cannot accept the judgment unfavorable to him.
EVALUATION: A perusal of the records shows that the complainant is questioning the ruling of the respondent judge granting a TRO on Civil Case No. 278-M-03 and the order reversing the decision of the MTC, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Clearly, the charges filed by 'the complainant pertain to the respondent's exercise of her judicial function.
It is a well-settled rule that acts of judges that pertain to their judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power unless it is clearly shown that they are not only unjust or contrary to law but were rendered with conscious and deliberate intent to commit an injustice. Obviously, these circumstances are not present in the case at bar. The ruling of the respondent judge reversing the previous decision of the municipal trial court is adverse to herein complainant, but it does not mean that such ruling is unjust or erroneous.
Notably, the complainant already raised, as a judicial issue, the ruling of the respondent judge in a petition for certiorari. The appellate court ruled on the matter by denying his appeal, thereby, affirming the ruling of the respondent judge. The complainant did not avail of any other judicial remedy. This only proves that the challenged act of the respondent was without grave abuse of authority or discretion. Thus, there is no occasion now to proceed administratively against the respondent judge.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is the recommendation that the present administrative complaint against Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos, Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Malolos, Bulacan, be DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence to hold her administratively liable.
We fully agree with the OCA.
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. [1] 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. [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
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 This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice [5] cralaw
The Court resolves to DISMISS the administrative complaint against Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o , 251 SCRA 174 (1995).
[2] cralaw Abdula v. Guiani , 326 SCRA 1 (2000).
[3] cralaw Sacmar � v. Reyes -Carpio , 400 SCRA 32 (2003).
[4] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar , 415 SCRA 377 (2003).
[5] cralaw Balsamo v. Suan , 411 SCRA 189 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
