ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2063-RTJ. April 24, 2006]

QUIRICO PE vs. JUDGE RENE S. HORTILLO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 31, ILOILO CITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated APR. 24, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2063-RTJ (Quirico Pe vs. Judge Rene S. Hortillo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Iloilo City .)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

In a verified complaint, Quirico Pe charges Judge Rene S. Hortillo with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment and Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Complainant alleges that a complaint for declaration of payment, cancellation of documents and damages was filed against him by Augustus Gonzales and spouses Nestor Victor and Dr. Ma. Lourdes Rodriguez before the RTC, Branch 31, Iloilo City presided over by respondent and docketed as Civil Case No. 25945. Plaintiffs prayed for an award of P100,000.00 as actual damages, which made the case fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. However, despite the apparent lack of jurisdiction to hear and try the case, respondent on July 26, 2002 (sic) rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs.

Complainant filed a notice of appeal which was given due course by respondent on August 05, 2002. However, plaintiffs moved for the dismissal of the appeal for failure of the complainant to pay the legal fees and for issuance of a writ of execution. Respondent, on October 03, 2002 (sic) dismissed the appeal and granted the issuance of a writ of execution. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant assailed the dismissal order before the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 73171.

Complainant argues that respondent should not have dismissed the appeal since he had already lost jurisdiction over the case.

On July 23, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision setting aside the respondent's order and directed the court to assess the appellate docket fees, if it has not done so, and allowed the petitioner to pay such fees and give due course to the appeal.

In his Comment, respondent contended that the court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Section 19, par. 1 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 since the subject matter of the complaint is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The amount prayed for by plaintiffs is merely incidental to the main cause of action of declaration of payment and annulment of documents. Further, the court, under the residual or retained jurisdiction under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not lose jurisdiction over the case when complainant filed a Notice of Appeal. The order of the court giving due course to the appeal of the complainant is not yet final as plaintiffs are still entitled to file a motion for reconsideration to the said order. The court granted the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs because complainant failed to pay the appellate docket fees within the reglementary period. Consequently, the appeal was not perfected, hence, the judgment became final and executory. Resultantly, the issuance of the writ of execution was proper.

Respondent also argues that complainant is estopped from challenging the court's jurisdiction, having voluntarily participated in the trial of the case. A party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief can not later on deny that same jurisdiction when he fails to secure the relief sought.

EVALUATION: For liability to attach in a charge of gross ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous, but, most importantly, it must also be established that he was moved by bad faith, fraud, malice or dishonesty (De Guzman vs. Pamintuan, 405 SCRA 22). Similarly, a judge will be held administratively liable for rendering an unjust judgment-one which is contrary to law or jurisprudence or is not supported by evidence-when he acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or some other similar motive (De Guzman vs. Dy, 405 SCRA 311).

Complainant failed to establish that respondent was moved by ill-will or bad faith when he took cognizance of the complaint and decided in favor of plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals in its Decision dated July 23, 2004 (CA G.R. SP No. 73171) ruled that respondent did not abuse his discretion when he entertained the civil complaint filed against complainant. The court held that while complainant did ask for actual damages of not less than P100,000.00, such relief is only incidental to their main action of declaration of payment and cancellation of documents and damages which is incapable of pecuniary estimation and legally under the jurisdiction of the RTC (Decision dated July 23, 2004, CA-G.R. SP No. 73172 [sic], Quirico Pe vs. Honorable Judge Rene Hortillo).

The Court of Appeals' ruling that respondent erroneously dismissed complainant's appeal is not tantamount to gross ignorance of law or a violation of the Anti-Graft Law as alleged by complainant. Such error was an error of judgment with which he cannot be charged in the absence of a showing of bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose. The Court has consistently held that a judge is allowed reasonable latitude for the operation of his own individual view of the case, his appreciation of the facts and his understanding of the applicable law on the matter (Dela Cruz vs. Concepcion, 235 SCRA 597). Thus, not every error or mistake committed by a judge in the performance of their official duties renders him administratively liable (Cruz vs. Iturralde, 402 SCRA 65).

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Rene S. Hortillo be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Rene S. Hortillo is DISMISSED. CHICO-NAZARIO, J., on official leave.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

By:

(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA

Assistant Clerk of Court

First Division

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE