ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-1080-RTJ.� July 20, 2005]
PAGUIO vs. BRUSOLA
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 20 2005 .
A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-1080-RTJ (GUILLERMO PAGUIO vs. Judge VLADIMIR BRUSOLA.)
This is an administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion and grave misconduct. Complainant is the Regional Officer of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) in the Bicol Region, while respondent is the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 6.
The complaint stemmed from a search warrant issued by respondent Judge which resulted in the seizure of thirty one (31) Shellane LPG gas cylinders from the Barcelona Trading at Ligao, Albay owned by Adolfo Sy. He was charged before the said RTC with violation of Section 155 of Republic Act No. 8293 (Patent Law). The seized items were deposited at the CIDG Office at Camp Gen. Simeon Ola headed by complainant.
Adolfo Sy filed a motion for the release of the LPG cylinders alleging that they are not the articles described in the search warrant.
On September 20, 2000, respondent Judge issued an order granting the motion and directing the release of the seized LPG cylinders.
Armed with the respondent Judge's order, Adolfo Sy asked complainant to release the seized LPG cylinders. He refused, claiming that the release order is not yet final. For delaying the release of the LPG cylinders, Adolfo Sy filed with the respondent court a petition praying that complainant be cited in contempt of court. Instead of filing the required comment on the petition, complainant moved for its dismissal for lack of verification and for non-payment of the required docket fees, in violation of Section 4, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Respondent Judge denied complainant's motion and set the contempt charge for hearing. Complainant moved for a reconsideration but his motion was denied.
When complainant failed to appear during the hearing of the contempt charge on September 29, 2000, respondent Judge issued an Order directing his arrest and setting the date of his arraignment on October 12, 2000. This prompted complainant to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 61154. He alleged therein that in issuing the Order for his arrest, respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner likewise filed a motion with the RTC praying that his arraignment be held in abeyance until such time that his petition with the Court of Appeals is resolved. The motion was denied. This denial precipitated the filing of the instant administrative complaint.
In his Memorandum dated April 15, 2002, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. reported as follows:
"Respondent is charged with 'gross ignorance of the law' for doing two things: 1) for ordering the return of items seized during a valid search of the premises of the Barcelona Trading owned by one Adolfo Dy. The reason for the seizure was Dy's alleged violations of R.A. No. 623 and R.A. No. 8293; and 2) for giving due course to Dy's motion to hold complainant in contempt of court and setting his arraignment. Both these actions are now under review by the Court of Appeals to which complainant elevated the matter by way of certiorari.
As both issues are now under review, this complaint should, in the meantime, be held pending until the Court of Appeals shall have ruled on them"
In our resolution dated June 26, 2002, we approved the recommendation of Court Administrator Velasco. Thus, we held in abeyance our action on the instant administrative complaint pending resolution by the Court of Appeals of petitioner's petition for certiorari and prohibition.
We have consistently held that where the issues in the administrative complaint are the very same issues before the Court of Appeals for resolution, as in this case, they are judicial in nature, and to address them in the administrative complaint would be to preempt their resolution before the Court of Appeals. [1] cralaw An administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to aggrieved parties and the same has not yet been resolved with finality. [2] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Spouses Gil A. De Leon and Mercedes De Leon vs. Hon. Judge Floro Bonifacio, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 159, City of Pasig, 280 SCRA 434, October 10, 1997.
[2] cralaw Sacmar vs. Reyes Carpio, 400 SCRA 32, March 28, 2003.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
