ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[
MAGLASANG vs. SITACA
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 15 2005.
OCA-IPI No. 03-1884-RTJ (Manuel A. Maglasang, Galileo A. Maglasang, Allan A. Maglasang, Visa U. Maglasang, Belmina V. Maglasang, Lucile A. Maglasang, Debra F. Maglasang and Helen E. Maglasang v. Judge Ma. Nimfa P. Sitaca.)
For consideration is the administrative complaint dated 21 October 2003 filed by Manuel A. Maglasang, Galileo A. Maglasang, Allan A. Maglasang, Visa U. Maglasang, Belmina V. Maglasang, Lucile A. Maglasang, Debra F. Maglasang and Helen E. Maglasang (Complainants) against Judge Ma. Nimfa P. Sitaca (Judge Sitaca) in her capacity as Acting Judge of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental. The charges are abuse of judicial power and authority, dishonesty, violation of Canon 17 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and oppression.
The complaint is an offshoot of the joint decision rendered by Judge Sitaca in Special Civil Action No. OC-004 (SCA-004) and Special Civil Action No. OC-005 (SCA-005). These were intra-corporate controversies involving the Misamis Institute of Technology, Inc. (MIT). SCA-004 was a twin petition for quo warranto and prohibition filed by complainants against Octavio A. Maglasang, Raul A. Maglasang and Rene A. Maglasang (oppositors) while SCA-005 was for quo warranto and nullification of meeting and elections filed by oppositors against complainants. The contending parties were the six (6) sons of the founders of MIT broken up into two camps, three brothers on each side with one side (complainants herein) joined by five women who are the wives of five of the brothers.
During pre-trial, Judge Sitaca limited the issues in the above-mentioned cases to who the legitimate president of MIT is and whether the wives of the brothers Maglasang are legal members of the Board of Trustees. [1] cralaw
She thereafter rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which provided:
WHEREFORE, the court renders judgment:
(a)���� declaring Rene A. Maglasang legitimate president until July 31, 2003;
(b)���� declaring the wives of the brothers Maglasang not legitimate members of the board of trustees, not having been legally admitted as members of MIT;
(c)���� ordering Rene A. Maglasang to call a meeting within 30 days from receipt of notice of this decision to admit a new member and elect new officers.
SO ORDERED. [2] cralaw
Complainants' motion for execution of the decision was denied by Judge Sitaca on the ground that except for the last part directing Rene Maglasang to call a meeting (which he already did), nothing more needed to be executed. [3] cralaw The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. [4] cralaw
Taking exception to the decision as well as the denial of their motion for execution, complainants filed the present administrative complaint against Judge Sitaca. As outlined in the complaint, the charges are premised on Judge Sitaca's alleged errors, viz.: (a) rendering a decision on an issue not raised in the pleadings; (b) making a decision which is not supported by evidence; (c) omitting to indicate in the decision the parties' serious argument over an issue during pre-trial; and (d) refusing to execute a part of the decision.
After study and evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the complaint. The OCA found that the grounds relied upon in the complaint are closely intertwined with the issues which had been brought to the Court of Appeals (CA) for review. In effect, they pertain to the exercise of Judge Sitaca's judicial functions as complainants are assailing the wisdom of the decision and the order issued by the judge. These issues cannot be threshed out by way of an administrative complaint since the former is not a substitute or a supplement to judicial remedies. The evidence adduced also failed to sustain a showing of partiality and willful intent to mislead as Judge Sitaca's decision and order had been sufficiently explained in her answer to the complaint.
Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Judge Ma. Nimfa P. Sitaca, in her capacity as Acting Judge of RTC-Branch 14 of Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 44.
[2] cralaw Id. at 77. Decision dated 29 July 2003.
[3] cralaw Id. at 68.
[4] cralaw Id. at 71.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
