ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1982-RTJ. January 26, 2005]

PAZ vs. FLORES

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 26 2005 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1982-RTJ (Atty. Tolomeo Paz vs. Judge Alipio V. Flores, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur.)

Considering the Report dated November 9, 2004 of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

1. VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated 15 March 2004 of Atty. Tolomeo C. Paz charging Judge Alipio V. Flores, with Grave Misconduct, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Partiality and/or Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment and Orders relative to Civil Case No. 5839-V entitled "Dr. Prospero Pilar versus Samuel Parilla, et al." for Ejectment with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Damages.

Complainant, who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff in the aforementioned civil case, alleges that the instant administrative complaint stemmed from the judgment that was rendered thereon by Judge Francisco Ante, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court of Bantay, Ilocos Sur, which ordered, inter alia, Dr. Prospero Pilar to reimburse the amount allegedly introduced over by the subject land. The aforesaid decision of Judge Ante, Jr. with respect to the portion concerning the reimbursement was appealed by the plaintiff to the RTC presided over by the herein respondent Judge Alipio V. Flores on the ground that the defendants did not adduce any affidavit at all or other evidence to prove the amount of improvements aside from the fact that they were usurpers who can never be entitled to any reimbursement in accordance with numerous decisions of the Supreme Court.

Complainant asserts that respondent Judge backtracked from his earlier order for the issuance of a writ of partial execution which is contrary to the Rule on Summary Procedure. He notes that the defendants neither filed any supersedeas bond with the MTC, Bantal, Ilocos Sur nor deposited with the sala of the respondent the amount of P50,000.00 by way of rentals for the use of the subject property, citing Rule 70, Section 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. He likewise accuses Judge Flores of utterly disregarding the Rules on Evidence and jurisprudence when the latter affirmed the judgment of the court a quo in his decision dated 13 November 2003. Likewise, in his Order dated 10 February 2004, respondent Judge also denied complainant's Motion for Reconsideration of the said decision.

2. COMMENT dated 21 May 2004 of Judge Flores. In his comment, respondent Judge narrates that sometime in the first week of November 2003 complainant went to his chambers to plead for the reversal of the lower court's decision in the appealed case in question. At that time, complainant even had the temerity to tell respondent that they will show their gratitude to him during the coming Christmas season when his brother-in-law arrives from abroad for a vacation.

He claims that while it is indeed true that he ordered the issuance of a writ of partial execution, he immediately lifted/quashed the same when he realized that his court did not acquire jurisdiction over the portion of the decision of the court a quo since that part was never appealed to his court. He further adds that the plaintiff had earlier filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals and until such time that his decision is either affirmed or reversed by the appellate court, complainant cannot question the same or make his own gratuitous conclusions therefrom.

Respondent also questions complainant's lack of legal personality to file this complaint because the latter had no interest in the subject matter of the case and was never a party to the ejectment suit, hence, his allegations in his complaint were not based on his personal knowledge. Moreover, respondent doubts the motive of complainant because while he merely affirmed the decision of Judge Ante, Jr., nothing was said about the author of the original decision. This, respondent adds, is an indication that the complaint was borne out of personal grudge against him and that it was filed to harass and get even with him for not acceding to the complainant's request for a favorable decision.

Finally, respondent cites the decisions of the Court which held that mere error of judgment does not warrant administrative sanctions against the judge. To hold him accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable.

3. In his LETTER-REPLY filed on 7 July 2004, Atty. Paz stresses that his complaint is not unwarranted because prior to its initiation, Judge Flores was already apprised of several Court decisions which prohibit courts from awarding monetary reimbursements to usurpers of land as well as of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides for the immediate execution of the decision of a first level court in an ejectment.

Complainant contends that in many instances, the Supreme Court allowed administrative complaints against judges to prosper although their questioned orders and decisions were later on appealed to higher tribunals by litigants. As a matter of fact, in many instances, the Court also allowed the filing of administrative complaints against judges even if the same were initiated by non-litigants.

Complainant further argues that respondent's order and decision do not fall under the realm of mere error of judgment for the reason that they were made in utter disregard of basic legal tenets on unlawful detainer and evidence.

EVALUATION: A thorough evaluation of the verified-complaint reveals that the alleged errors committed by respondent Judge pertain to the exercise of his adjudicative functions. Such errors cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies.

The records show that plaintiff (complainant's brother-in-law) has utilized the available judicial remedy of appeal when he elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals docketed thereat as CA-G.R. SP No. 82892 entitled Dr. Prospero Pilar vs. Samuel Parilla, et al. Considering that the subject decision is now pending review before the Court of Appeals, if any, would be premature and would even be tantamount to pre-empting the Court of Appeals of its legal authority to exercise its appellate jurisdiction over the case.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against Judge Alipio V. Flores, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, be DISMISSED for being premature.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation thereon to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Alipio V. Flores is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE