ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1652-MTJ. April 3, 2006]
CONSTANTINO G. SY v. JUDGE CARLOS C. FERNANDO, MTCC, BRANCH 2, MANDAUE CITY
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated APR. 3, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1652-MTJ (Constantino G. Sy v. Judge Carlos C. Fernando, MTCC, Branch 2, Mandaue City)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated November 14, 2005, to wit:
REASON FOR AGENDA : In a verified complaint dated 13 November 2004, Constantino G. Sy charges Judge Carlos C. Fernando, MTCC, Branch 2, Mandaue City, with grave partiality or bias, gross ignorance of the law/rules and dereliction of duty. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 3825 entitled Constantino G. Sy v. Ang Bian Huat Sons Industries, Inc. and Edilberto Ang Gabonsseng (sic) for damages with prayer far a writ of preliminary injunction, which was filed with Branch 2. An amended complaint was later filed, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary prohibitory Injunction against the defendants.
Complainant alleges that he was not given a fair chance to prove the necessity of the ancillary remedy prayed for, as respondent judge "brushed aside" the injunctive relief sought on the pretext that "only in matters of life and death are courts allowed to issue the same," a condition, which complainant claims to be not found in the Rules. He likewise took exception to the denial of his "impromptu motion and prayer for an ocular inspection" by the respondent judge. For these reasons, he accuses respondent judge of "unbridled bias and mental dishonesty," which amounts to gross ignorance of the rules, as well as dereliction of duty.
For his part, respondent judge clarifies that Civil Case No. 3825 had already been decided in favor of herein complainant, and the decision had already become final, and had been executed and satisfied. He claims that he cannot be held administratively liable even assuming that his decision was erroneous considering that complainant failed to impute to him fraud, dishonesty or corruption in the performance of his judicial functions. On the contrary, it was complainant who is guilty of dishonesty for his failure to disclose the filing of a second amended complaint in Civil Case No. 3825 in which he abandoned his application for a TRO or preliminary injunction, thereby rendering the alleged refusal of the judge to grant the same moot and academic. Consequently, he filed a motion to cite complainant and counsel in contempt of court for misleading the Court.
EVALUATION : The complaint should be dismissed.
The complaint is premised on the denial by the respondent judge of the prayer for a TRO or preliminary injunction in the amended complaint in Civil Case No. 3825. A perusal of the records, however, revealed that complainant opted not to pursue this ancillary remedy by filing a second amended complaint without reiterating the same remedy therein. Consequently, he is deemed to have abandoned his prayer therefor, taking into consideration the provision of Section 8, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, thus:
Sec. 8. Effect of amended pleadings. - An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader; claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
By abandoning his prayer for injunctive relief, complainant has no factual or legal basis to question the inaction of the respondent judge on his earlier plea for such relief as well as the motion for ocular inspection, the latter being intertwined with the ancillary remedy sought for.
That Civil Case No. 3825 was decided in favor of complainant belies the allegation of partiality against the respondent judge. In fact, it is not only in this case that respondent judge decided in favor of the complainant, but in two other cases as well, all of which have already attained finality. Nonetheless, whatever error that may have been committed, if any, can only be viewed as an error of judgment because complainant failed to prove any act constituting bad faith, malice or corrupt practice on the part of the respondent judge [Dela Cruz v. Conception, 235 SCRA 597 (1994)]. Inquiry into the administrative liability of the respondent judge may only be commenced after the judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate court had already spoken with finality. The rationale for this is that disciplinary proceedings against judges are not contemporary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for judicial remedies. Resort to and exhaustion of judicial remedies and the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against judges concerned, whether civil, administrative, or criminal in nature [The Officers and Members of IBP, Baguio-Benguet Chapter v. Judge Pamintuan , 443 SCRA 87 (2004)].
As to the motion to cite complainant and his counsel in contempt of court for misleading the Court, a perusal of the complaint shows that indeed the second amended complaint was never mentioned therein. However, respondent judge failed to establish that complainant, through counsel, deliberately withheld such information in order to mislead the Court.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that the (1) complaint against Judge Carlos C. Fernando be DISMISSED for lack of merit, and (2) motion to cite complainant and his counsel in contempt of court be DENIED.
The Court agrees with the foregoing recommendations of the OCA.
It must be stressed that the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are ordinarily not subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative - for any official act, no matter how erroneous, as long as he or she acts in good faith. [1] cralaw Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. [2] cralaw To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his or her judgment. [3] cralaw There is no such evidence of ill motive on the part of Judge Fernando in this case.
Considering the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against Judge Carlos C. Fernando. For failing to establish that complainant Constantino G. Sy deliberately withheld information to mislead the Court, Judge Fernando's motion to cite complainant and his counsel for contempt of court is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA
ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Balsamo v. Suan , A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656, September 17, 2003, 411 SCRA 189, 200.
[2] cralaw Dr. Cruz v. Judge Iturralde , 450 Phil. 77, 88 (2003).
[3] cralaw Sacmar v. Judge Reyes-Carpio , 448 Phil. 37, 43 (2003), citing Basa Air Base Savings & Loan Association, Inc. v. Judge Pimentel, Jr., 436 Phil. 351, 357 (2002).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
