ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. IPI No. 04-1646-MTJ.� July 20, 2005]
NATAL vs. MUPAS
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 20 2005.
A.M. IPI No. 04-1646-MTJ (Nilda A. Natal vs. Judge Lorinda B. Toledo-Mupas, MTC, Dasmari�as, Cavite.)
On October 7, 2004, Natal filed a verified complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Lorinda B. Toledo-Mupas in connection with the Resolution issued on October 15, 1997 by respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 304 for Unlawful Detainer. Natal, one of the defendants in said case, described the Resolution as inhuman, ordering her as it did to vacate the subject property and to pay plaintiff unpaid rentals. She claimed that said Resolution discredited her personality as a human being and prompted the Homeowner Association to padlock the subject property.
In her Comment, respondent Judge denied the allegations of grave abuse of discretion against her considering that she acted with dedication, diligence and competence in resolving the case. The records show that after plaintiff had filed the complaint for unlawful detainer, she was served with summons with a copy of the complaint attached thereto and was personally given notice to file an answer within ten (10) days from receipt. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a Motion to Render Judgment on the ground that defendants failed to file their answer despite the extension of the period to file answer. Respondent Judge granted plaintiff's motion and issued the questioned Resolution. For failure to appeal the Resolution within the reglementary period, plaintiff filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment, which was granted by respondent Judge. The Writ of Execution was returned unserved because Natal was still in possession of the subject property. Thus, plaintiff filed a Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution, which was also granted by respondent Judge. To date, there is no return of said alias writ of execution.
The OCA recommends the dismissal of the instant administrative proceeding because the act complained of pertains to respondent Judge's judicial function.
The Court adopts the OCA's recommendation.
The acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith. For a judge to be held administratively liable for rendering an unjust judgment, the complaint must prove that the judgment is patently contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence and made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. [1] cralaw Natal's allegations do not support the conclusion that respondent Judge may be held administratively liable for issuing the questioned Resolution. While the Resolution was adverse to Natal, this does not indicate that its issuance was tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith.
As correctly pointed out by the OCA, if Natal believes that respondent Judge committed an error in issuing the assailed Resolution, she should have availed of the judicial remedies such as filing a motion for reconsideration or elevating the matter to the proper appellate court. This she failed to do. A judge may not be held administratively liable for every erroneous decision he makes, for no judge is infallible. Only where the error is gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith may administrative sanctions be imposed. [2] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Lorinda B. Toledo-Mupas is DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Frani v. Judge Pagayatan, 416 Phil. 205, 212 (2001).
[2] cralaw Phil. Geriatrics Foundation, Inc. v. Judge Layosa, 416 Phil. 668, 674 (2001).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
