ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2225-RTJ. April 17, 2006]
MAYOR FRANCISCO B. GADDI, JR. v. JUDGE CARMELITA G. FRUELDA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, SAN FERNANDO CITY, PAMPANGA
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated APR. 17, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2225-RTJ (Mayor Francisco B. Gaddi, Jr. v. Judge Carmelita G. Fruelda, Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, San Fernando City, Pampanga )
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
1. COMPLAINT dated April 1, 2005 of Mayor Francisco B. Gaddi, Jr. charging Judge Carmelita G. Fruelda with Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, Manifest Bias and Partiality relative to Election Protest Case No. 04-01 entitled "Dominador Dizon vs. Francisco G. Gaddi, Jr."
Complainant is the protestee of Election Protest Case No. 04-01, having been proclaimed as the mayoralty winner of Sta. Ana, Pampanga on May 14, 2004, and has accordingly occupied the elected position. The election protest was raffled to respondent Judge who proceeded to hear the protest in accord with the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and Rules.
Complainant avers that respondent showed manifest bias and partiality for protestant, citing several alleged instances. Thus, on February 28, 2005, complainant filed an "URGENT MOTION FOR INHIBITION AND FOR POSTPONEMENT" which respondent denied in her Order dated March 7, 2005. Although an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration thereof was filed by the complainant on March 21, 2005, still no action was taken thereon by the herein respondent Judge. Complainant now comes to us essentially praying for the inhibition and disqualification of respondent from presiding and conducting further proceedings in the aforesaid election protest case.
2. COMMENT dated June 3, 2005 of respondent Judge Carmelita G. Fruelda to the COMPLAINT of Mayor Francisco G. Gaddi, Jr.
Respondent, in her defense, vehemently denies complainant's allegations and argues that the records clearly show that complainant was not only fairly accorded a lot of latitude but was even given more days to present his case than protestant. Besides, the perceived reverses of complainant were due to his employment of dilatory tactics, which the court did not tolerate. Further, respondent asserts that the motions to inhibit filed by complainant were nothing more than a ruse to delay the disposition of the election protest. In fine, there is pressure exerted on respondent through an undated death threat sent by mail, which does not cow her.
3. REPLY dated June 20 2005 of complainant Mayor Francisco Gaddi, Jr. to the COMMENT of Judge Carmelita Fruelda.
Complainant merely reiterates all the previous allegations in his complaint. He claims that respondent Judge was indeed partial for protestant in the election protest despite the reasons she gave for the dismissal of the administrative complaint.
EVALUATION: The complaint charges the respondent Judge for Manifest Bias and Partiality constituting Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. Whilst a circumspect review of the records at hand clearly shows that the complaint has no factual and legal bases to sustain the allegations therein, nonetheless, we note that complainant has utilized the available judicial remedy of certiorari before the Court of Appeals for review of the questioned Orders of respondent denying complainant's motion for inhibition and motion for reconsideration thereof. The Court of Appeals Seventh Division granted on May 6, 2005 a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondent from presiding and conducting further proceedings in Election Protest Case No. 04-01. The hearing for the application of the writ of preliminary injunction was set on June 29, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint be DISMISSED for being premature.
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.
A decision on the propriety of the order of respondent Judge in this administrative proceeding is, indeed, premature. Disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary; an inquiry into their administrative liability arising from judicial acts may be made only after other available remedies have been settled. [1] cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Carmelita G. Fruelda, RTC, Branch 43, San Fernando City, Pampanga is DISMISSED for being premature.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA
ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
By:
EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rudy T. Salcedo vs. Judge Amado S. Caguioa, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1328, February 11, 2004, 422 SCRA 426, 431. Citing Bello III vs. Diaz, AM-MTJ-00-1311, October 3, 2003, 412 SCRA 573.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
