ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2379-RTJ. April 26, 2006]
RE: LUDOLFO P. MU�OZ, JR. v. JUDGE PEDRO R. SORIAO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 5, LEGASPI CITY
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated APR. 26, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2379-RTJ (Re: Ludolfo P. Munoz, Jr. v. Judge Pedro R. Soriao, Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Legaspi City)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated 03 August 2005 [with enclosures] of Ludolfo P. Mu�oz, Jr., charging respondent Judge, Pedro R. Soriao with Ignorance of the Law and Misconduct relative to Criminal Case Nos. 9704, 9705 and 9737 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Ludolfo P. Mu�oz, Jr.", for Libel.
Complainant alleges that he is the accused in the aforementioned
criminal cases which were consolidated, heard and decided by the respondent
Judge. After trial, respondent Judge
rendered a decision which found him guilty in three cases and imposed a penalty
of two (2) years for each of the three cases plus damages amounting to more
than fifteen million pesos (P15,000,000.00). The said decision was promulgated on 24 February 2005 and a copy of the
same was received by him on the same day. Subsequently, the private prosecutors in conformity of the public
prosecutor, filed a Motion for Issuance of a Hold Departure Order, a copy of
which was received by his lawyer on 28 February 2005 at about
His counsel received a copy of the Motion on 28 February 2005, on the date the Motion was supposed to be heard as therein set. Thinking that no order as yet has been issued by respondent Judge and due to the fact that it is a litigious motion which according to the rules should be heard, complainant filed his Opposition or Comment on the motion. Records show that complainant filed his Comment/Opposition on March 4, 2005. However, on 07 March 2005, respondent Judge issued an Order refusing to act and consider complainant's Comment/Opposition on the ground that he already signed the order giving due course to the Notice of Appeal on 03 March 2005. On 09 March 2005, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the said Order but to no avail.
Complainant argues that the respondent Judge acted with partiality and bias and ignored the requirement of the rules relative to the three (3) days notice in filing litigious motions. He believes that the argument of the respondent Judge that he already lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the Notice of Appeal which has been given due course in his Order dated 03 March 2005 is erroneous. He contended that the latter's act of granting the Motion for Issuance of a Hold Departure Order is contradictory to his earlier pronouncement that the trial court already lost jurisdiction over the case, for which reason, complainant considers it as an act violative of the principle that judges must be fair and just at all times in his dealings, and must not do any act which will raise suspicion among parties litigants.
COMMENT dated 08 December 2005 [with enclosures] of respondent Judge Pedro R. Soriao.
By way of defense, the respondent Judge alleges that the hold departure order in question was issued in good faith pursuant to his authority as a Judge in relation to Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97 dated 19 June 1997, the pertinent portion of which reads:
"xxx xxx Hold Departure order shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts xxx xxx."
Respondent said that the above-cited circular provides the legal basis for the issuance of a hold departure order while a criminal case is pending trial. Noteworthy is the fact that the hold departure order in question was issued after conviction. Conviction erases the presumption of innocence, thus, establishing one's restraint on the right to travel - for the enjoyment of provisional liberty while the criminal case is on appeal is discretionary with the court (Section 5, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure), respondent said. Moreover, respondent submits that the hold departure order was properly issued considering that there is great probability on the part of the complainant to go abroad while his cases are still pending appeal. It should be noted, respondent added, that the Honorable Court of Appeals has not acted up to now on the prayer of the complainant to lift the trial court's hold departure order. Therefore, even the appellate court believes that the hold departure order was not peremptorily issued.
In sum, the respondent Judge submits that he committed no partiality nor bias in the issuance of the assailed hold departure order as the same can even be issued unilaterally by his court.
EVALUATION: The case at hand stemmed from the alleged infractions of the respondent Judge relative to Criminal Case Nos. 9704, 9705 and 9737 entitled, "People of the Philippines vs. Ludolfo P. Mu�oz, Jr.", for Libel. After a thorough and careful perusal of the records of this case, this Office is of the considered view that the instant complaint deserves scant consideration as the same is devoid of any merit.
As gleaned from the complainant's allegations, the latter is assailing the wisdom behind the issuance of the respondent Judge's hold departure order by virtue of the latter's finding that the complainant is guilty of three (3) counts of libel. In a string of cases, the Supreme Court ruled that errors of judgment as well as errors of jurisdiction are both subjects of appellate review. It is axiomatic that it is not proper for a litigant who believes that a magistrate committed an error in the exercise of his judicial function to charge the latter administratively.
In A.M. OCA No. 03-1800-RTJ, November 26, 2004, Re: Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zu�o vs. Judge Alejandro C. Cabebe, etc., the Supreme Court enunciated:
"In Villanueva-Fabella vs. Lee, we ruled that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order he renders. For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order of a judge must not only be erroneous; more important, it must be motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other similar motive." (Emphasis ours)
In the case at bar, complainant failed to adduce positive evidence that the respondent Judge's Order dated 01 March 2005 granting the private complainant's Motion for Issuance of a Hold Departure Order was motivated by bad faith, corrupt and malevolent intentions.
As correctly observed by Judge Soriao, the filing of this administrative complaint deserves scant consideration in view of the fact that the complainant has a pending appeal case at the Court of Appeals involving the same libel suits. As a matter of policy, as long as there remains a remedy (i.e. petition for certiorari or appeal) available for an aggrieved party in a suit, an administrative complaint should be avoided except if the grounds earlier mentioned (i.e. bad faith, corrupt purpose, etc.) are present.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Pedro Soriao be DISMISSED for being judicial in nature and for being prematurely filed.
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.
Settled is the rule that errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies -disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, and an inquiry into their administrative liability arising from judicial acts may be made only after other available remedies have been settled. It has been said that a complainant who resorts to administrative disciplinary action, even before the judicial remedies are settled, in effect, abuses court process. [1] cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Pedro R. Soriao is DISMISSED. CHICO-NAZARIO, J., on official leave.
SO ORDERED.
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 Salcedo v. Caguioa , 422 SCRA 426 (2004).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
