ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA-IPI No. 04-1621-MTJ.� July 11, 2005]
CRBI vs. DELA CRUZ
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 11 2005.
A.M. OCA-IPI No. 04-1621-MTJ (Community Rural Bank, Inc., Guimba, Nueva Ecija by: Ramon D. de Ocampo vs. Judge Joselito R. Dela Cruz.)
Ramon D. de Ocampo, Vice-President for Operations and authorized representative of Community Rural Bank, Inc. (CRBI), filed a verified Complaint-Affidavit dated September 14, 2004, charging Judge Joselito dela Cruz with Gross Ignorance of the Law and/or Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment in connection with the latter's joint decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 3470 and 3471 entitled People v. Olanio, Jr. for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
It appears that CRBI was the private complainant in these criminal cases for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. After trial, respondent judge rendered a joint decision acquitting the accused in both cases without pronouncement with respect to the civil aspect. Respondent judge also denied private complainant's motion for reconsideration.
Complainant contends that the joint decision and order denying the motion for reconsideration are replete with errors for which respondent judge should be held administratively liable. Among the errors respondent judge allegedly committed were: (1) his ruling that the drawee should give notice of dishonor to the drawer within five (5) days from the date the check was dishonored; (2) his failure to make a ruling with respect to the civil aspect of the cases; and (3) his denial of the motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time discounting the fact that the period to file the motion should commence not from the date of receipt of the decision by the private complainant itself but by its counsel.
As required in the 1st Indorsement dated October 8, 2004, respondent judge filed his letter-comment dated December 1, 2004, denying the charges against him and contending, among others, that the filing of the administrative case is premature, considering that complainant had already filed a petition for certiorari with the trial court assailing the joint decision.
Complainant filed a Reply dated December 22, 2004, reiterating its allegations and insisting that respondent judge deliberately disregarded the law and jurisprudence and deserves to be administratively sanctioned, his pretense of good faith notwithstanding.
In its Report dated May 4, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator recommends that the case be dismissed for being premature without prejudice to its re-filing after the final resolution of the judicial action in the lower court.
We agree with the recommendation of the OCA. There is a pending petition for certiorari of the joint decision rendered by respondent judge which must be resolved with finality before this administrative complaint may be evaluated on the merits. Otherwise, the Court might preempt and compromise the decision of the lower court on the petition pending before it.
An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available such as the petition for certiorari already resorted to by complainant in this case. If subsequent developments prove respondent judge's challenged decision and order to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all. [1] cralaw
Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary to, nor substitute for, judicial remedies. Resort to and exhaustion of these remedies, as well as entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether civil, administrative, or criminal in nature. 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. [2] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to the re-filing thereof after the main case has been finally resolved.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Punongbayan v. Libre, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1918, June 8, 2005.
[2] cralaw Ibid.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
