ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. No. 06-3-05-CA. April 18, 2006]
RE: UNDOCKETED COMPLAINT OF ORLANDO A. RAYOS AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES AMELITA G. TOLENTINO, DANILO B. PINE AND VICENTE S.E. VELOSO
En Banc
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR. 18, 2006
A.M. No. 06-3-05-CA (Re: Undocketed Complaint of Orlando A. Rayos against Court of Appeals Justices Amelita G. Tolentino, Danilo B. Pine and Vicente S.E. Veloso )
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
Complainant Orlando A. Rayos charges respondents, Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino, Danilo B. Pine [1] cralaw and Vicente S.E. Veloso of the Court of Appeals, for gross ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency, incompetence and obstruction of justice relative to their September 29, 2005 decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 85636. [2] cralaw
Complainant alleges that respondents' decision was contrary to law and jurisprudence. He avers that he moved for its reconsideration but respondents have yet to resolve his motion despite constant follow-ups.
In its memorandum, the Office of the Court Administrator finds that complainant does not impute malice or bad faith to respondents. He merely assails respondents' appreciation of the facts and law. Thus, the subject of his complaint is judicial in character and correctible through recourse to judicial remedies provided under the Rules of Court, not by administrative proceedings.
We agree.
Not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his official duties necessarily renders him administratively liable therefor. [3] cralaw To merit disciplinary sanction, the error should be patent, gross, malicious, deliberate or done in bad faith. [4] cralaw Errors committed by a magistrate in the performance of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings but should instead be assailed through appropriate judicial remedies. [5] cralaw
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
Puno, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Compulsorily retired on December 27, 2005.
[2] cralaw Respondents were members of the Special Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals. The decision was penned by Justice Tolentino and concurred in by his co-respondents.
[3] cralaw Spouses Godinez v. Hon. Alano , 362 Phil. 597 (1999).
[4] cralaw Id.
[5] cralaw Dr. Cruz v. Judge Iturralde , 450 Phil. 77 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
