ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2020-RTJ. January 10, 2005]
SALOMON vs. VILCHES
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 10 2005.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2020-RTJ (Arlene Carmela M. Salomon vs. Judge Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches, RTC, Manila, Branch 48.)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator dated October 8, 2004, to wit:
1. Verified complaint dated 27 May 2004 of Ms. Arlene Carmela M. Salomon charging Judge Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches of Grave Misconduct, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Evident Partiality and Manifest Bad Faith.
Complainant is the defendant in Civil Case No. 00-97184 entitled
Noel Lacson vs. Arlene Salomon Lacson for declaration of nullity of marriage.
On 08 August 2001, respondent rendered a decision declaring null and void the
marriage of Noel Lacson and complainant. Custody of their children was awarded
to complainant while Noel Lacson was granted visitation rights. Later,
complainant entered into a compromise agreement fixing the monthly support to
be given by Noel Lacson to the children at P13,250.00, the same to be
deposited with the court.
Sometime in July 2003, Noel Lacson stopped giving the monthly support. Complainant asked for a show-cause order from the court. Respondent allegedly did not act on the motion. Complainant then filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution. There being no action on the motion, complainant filed a motion asking the court to resolve her previous motion.
On 05 March 2004, complainant's counsel received an Order dated 16 February 2004 denying the Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution. In the same order, the court stated that the custody of the children "is maintained with" Noel Lacson. On 28 March 2004, complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On 14 May 2004, she received another Order dated 19 April 2004 wherein respondent affirmed the award of the custody of the children to Noel Lacson on the ground that the children have been staying with the latter for quite sometime. This was, likewise, based on the confidential case study report of the Court Social Worker. This is also the reason why the court upheld the denial of the Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution. As to the support which was withheld from 01 July 2003, the court directed the parties to submit the correct dates of the alleged non-payment and clarify who has custody of the children during the period child support was withheld.
First, complainant is assailing the Decision dated 08 August 2001 of respondent. In the dispositive portion thereof, respondent, before declaring null and void the marriage between Noel Lacson and complainant, stated that the marriage was ratified through a church wedding. Complainant is claiming that there was no such church wedding.
Second, she is questioning the award of the custody of her children to Noel Lacson. She believes that respondent erred in relying on the self-serving declarations of Noel and the report of the social worker. She claims that respondent should have determined first the fitness of Noel to exercise custody over their children. She adds that Noel had previously contracted a bigamous marriage and that Noel brought her children to the house of his second wife. Anent the case study report, she alleges that it was not even the subject of a hearing. Complainant also contends that respondent erred in holding that custody should be maintained with Noel because the latter never had custody in the first place.
Third, complainant believes that there is really no need for them to submit the dates when payment of support was not made because, according to her, what respondent should have done was refer to the record of the case to see if any deposit was made.
Fourth, complainant is complaining of the delays incurred by respondent in resolving her various motions regarding the custody of the children and their support.
Finally, she is accusing respondent of failing to discharge her administrative duties. It appears that Noel Lacson filed a motion for the issuance of a subpoena addressed to their children. According to complainant, she opposed the motion. Notwithstanding the fact that respondent has not yet resolved the motion, a subpoena duly signed by the Officer-in-Charge was sent and received by one of her sons. She filed a motion for the issuance of a show-cause order against the Officer-in-Charge, but respondent ignored the same.
2. In her Comment dated 06 July 2004, respondent admits that there was, indeed, a mistake in the dispositive portion of the Decision dated 08 August 2001. However, she claims that it is a mere typographical error which did not, in any way, affect the result of the case. She also contends that the complainant should have filed a motion for reconsideration or an appeal instead of waiting for three (3) years to call attention to the mistake.
With regard to the custody of the children, respondent quoted the pertinent portions of the report of the Court Social Worker showing that, in sum, the children would rather be with their father.
Respondent denies there were any delays in resolving the motions filed by complainant. Respondent contends that several months after the parties executed the Compromise Agreement fixing the monthly support, Noel Lacson filed an application for custody of the children. He set the application for hearing on 23 July 2003. On the said date, complainant filed a motion for the issuance of a show-cause order against Noel Lacson for his failure to deposit the monthly support for the month of July 2003. This was set for hearing on 06 August 2003, but it was reset to 29 August 2003 by agreement of the parties. On 28 September 2003, complainant filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the Compromise Agreement. During the hearing on 17 October 2003, respondent issued an order submitting for resolution the said motions. On 29 October 2003, respondent referred the matter to the Court Social Worker who submitted a report on 16 January 2004. On 16 February 2004, respondent issued an order directing that custody shall be maintained with Noel Lacson and denying the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.
Anent the accusation that she failed to discharge her administrative duties, she contends that no violation has been committed by the Officer-in-Charge when the latter signed the subpoena. She avers that this practice is more in keeping with Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which enjoins judges to facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of the court personnel.
EVALUATION: The complaint is devoid of merit.
The error in the dispositive portion of the Decision dated 08 August 2001 has been admitted by respondent. This notwithstanding, we feel that this is not enough to penalize respondent. We are inclined to believe that the error was merely typographical and completely harmless as it did not affect the outcome of the case. As proof thereof, it took complainant close to three (3) years before raising the issue.
The issues regarding the custody of the children and the failure of Noel Lacson to provide monthly support are judicial in nature. Respondent's ruling on these matters are embodied in the Orders dated 16 February 2004 and 19 April 2004. If complainant feels that mistakes have been made in issuing these orders, she should have availed of the available remedies provided under the Rules of Court. This Court has consistently held that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available, and if subsequent developments prove the challenged acts to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all (Santos vs. Orlino, 296 SCRA 101). It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened or closed. (Flores vs. Abesamis, 275 SCRA 302, 316)
We do not find respondent liable for delay. The motions which, according to complainant, were not resolved by respondent expeditiously are the following: Motion for the Issuance of a Show-Cause Order; Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution; and Motion to Resolve. The first two (2) motions were submitted for resolution on 17 October 2003. The third was filed thereafter or on 24 October 2003. However, the Order of 17 October 2003 is misleading because even after that date proceedings were conducted by respondent. In fact, she referred the case to the Court Social Worker on 29 October 2003. The report was submitted on 16 January 2004. Strictly speaking, it is only on this date that the motions can be considered submitted for resolution. From 16 January 2004, it took respondent only a month to come up with her ruling.
Finally, complainant has blown out of proportion the act of the Officer-in-Charge in signing the subpoena for her sons. It is part of the duties of the Officer-in-Charge to sign subpoenas. (Manual of Clerks of Court, Vol. I, p. 194) At any rate, this issue was rendered moot when respondent decided not to call the children to the witness stand, (see the order dated 19 April 2004)
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court is the recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
We agree.
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
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Judge Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
[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
