ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1753-MTJ. August 30, 2006]

MELECIO ALDAY, et al. v. JUDGE RENATO D. PINLAC, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, CABANATUAN CITY

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 30, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1753-MTJ (Melecio Alday, et al. v. Judge Renato D. Pinlac, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Cabanatuan City)

The instant administrative matter stemmed from the Complaint dated July 25, 2005 filed by Melecio Alday and Atty. Norberto L. Cajucom charging respondent Judge Renato Pinlac, MTCC, Cabanatuan City, with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Misuse of the Rules of Procedure and Serious Misconduct, Delay in the Administration of Justice in Violation of Administrative Circular No. 4 in Relation to Circular No. 1-89. It appears that complainant Melecio and his son are the accused in an Information filed on August 8, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 82289 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Florante (Reynante) Alday and Melecio Alday" for Illegal Discharge of Firearm (Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code). It was respondent Judge who issued a warrant of arrest on April 1, 2003.

The allegations in the complaint and the corresponding pleadings filed by the parties are summarized in the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated July 26, 2006, to wit:

On 02 April 2003, complainants filed a Motion to Conduct Preliminary Examination before the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest but the same was denied by respondent Judge in his Order dated 30 April 2003. Complainants thru counsel allege that respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest without conducting a Preliminary Investigation and relied merely on the Certification of the investigating prosecutor. As a result thereof both the complainant and his son were arrested. They posted bail of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and was thereby released.

On 05 May 2005 their first witness, Giovanni De la Cruz, was already cross-examined, and was questioned by respondent judge allegedly for clarificatory questions. Thereafter, the second witness Victor De la Cruz was presented. However, when he had barely testified for two minutes, the private prosecutor moved to postpone the hearing. Complainant's counsel (Atty. Cajucom) on the other hand, vigorously objected because their case has been pending for a period of more than two (2) years. Complainants maintain that the court gave more importance to cases involving violation of BP 22 which were set ahead of the case. Said objection was resented by respondent judge and uttered "that as long as I am the judge of this court I can do what I want."

Because of that behavior of respondent judge, a heated argument between Atty. Cajucom and respondent judge ensued and only the intervention of Atty. Angelito Adriano one of the respected lawyers present in the court during that day prevented Judge Pinlac from citing Atty. Cajucom for contempt. Nevertheless he reset, against their protest, the hearing of their case on 15 June 2005 for the continuation of the direct examination.

According to complainants, based on the testimonies of the witnesses so far presented, the crime of illegal discharge of firearm has no basis in fact and in law. They aver that the information should have been quashed from the outset as the facts alleged in the information do not constitute the offense of illegal discharge of firearm.

Complainants allege that on several occasions during the hearing of their case, Atty. Cajucom witnessed the "pasiklab" of Judge Renato Pinlac, who ordered some persons in the courtroom whose shirts are not buttoned or for some other reasons allegedly for misbehavior to go to the Office of the Clerk of Court to pay fines of P100.00 each. These persons paid their fines to the Clerk of Court as per Certification of the Clerk of Court IV Arsenio S. Vicencio dated 11 July 2005.

On 08 June 2005, respondent judge denied the request of Atty. Cajucom for the minutes of the hearing of the cases of the persons who were unduly fined.

According to the complainants, the aforesaid minutes would show that respondent judge misused his contempt power by not issuing a written order of contempt against the persons adjudged guilty thereof.

Atty. Cajucom avers that although he is not the counsel of those persons, as a lawyer, it is his duty under the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility particularly Canon 4 to report to the Supreme Court actuations of a judge who misuses the Rules on Procedure in order to defeat the ends of justice and such other misconduct which tends to degrade the image of the judiciary.

Complainants further aver that respondent judge manifests a lack of mastery of the applicable law on the subject of the criminal prosecution for illegal discharge of firearm and the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

1. COMMENT dated 07 September 2005 of respondent Judge Renato D. Pinlac.

Respondent judge states that the charges of the complainants are malicious, unfounded, baseless, unmeritorious, designed to discredit and harass the undersigned judge in the conduct of his official duties.

Respondent admits that on 01 April 2003 he issued the warrant of arrest against the accused Melecio Alday and Florante Alday in relation to Criminal Case No. 82289 for illegal discharge of firearm, and also in the other Criminal Case No. 82287 for attempted homicide. Both were represented by Atty. Cajucom.

Respondent avers that before he issued the warrant of arrest, he evaluated the affidavit and other evidence submitted by the prosecution pursuant to Section 6, pars. a and b of Rule 112, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. According to the above provisions, it is not mandatory on the part of the judge to conduct preliminary investigation to find probable cause if based on the resolution and supporting evidence submitted by the Investigating Prosecutor the judge finds probable cause wherein the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days from notice.

Respondent avers that applying the aforesaid provisions of the Rule, an order was issued directing the issuance of warrant of arrest against Florante Alday and Melecio Alday. In view of the findings of the respondent of the existence of probable cause, a bond of P10,000.00 each had been fixed for their respective temporary liberty.

Respondent claims that his decision was guided by the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. He could hardly understand in what instance he acted with gross ignorance of the law and blatantly misused the Rules on Criminal Procedure in order to defeat the ends of justice as alleged by the complainants.

Respondent asserts that assuming arguendo, that there was an error committed by him, the same could not be the subject of an administrative complaint because it could be corrected by elevating the matter to the higher court.

Respondent points out that the animosity/ill feeling of Atty. Cajucom (a former judge of Pasay City who was dismissed from service) against him started in one of the cases being handled by the latter before his (respondent's) sala, Atty. Cajucom as defense counsel personally requested respondent to grant his Motion to Quash Information in relation to Criminal Case No. 82445 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Maylyn De Guzman" for Perjury. Respondent did not give way to said request of Atty. Cajucom despite reports that Atty. Cajucom is well known on his attitude of filing Administrative Cases against judges and fiscals if he cannot secure favorable decisions or orders. Another incident was when complainant Melecio Alday lost in Civil Case No. 15102 for Ejectment. The decision of herein respondent was affirmed by the Appellate Court.

Respondent avers that on several occasions Atty. Cajucom disturbed the proceedings in respondent's sala the last one being on 05 May 2005 when the Court was issuing an order and the latter interrupted in an arrogant manner. It was only through the intervention of one of the respected practicing lawyers in Cabanatuan City that an order citing Atty. Cajucom for contempt was not issued.

On the complainants' accusation of his alleged abuse of discretion, respondent argues that Courts have the inherent power to cite persons in contempt, for such acts as making a call with the use of cellphones while trial is going on, and wearing unbuttoned polo shirts while inside the courtroom. The purpose is to maintain proper order in and give due respect to the Court and for the observance of proper decorum.

On the other hand, respondent vehemently denies the accusation of the complainant that he was delaying the trial of the case. The records of the case would prove that there was no such delay in the proceedings. In fact, the testimony of one of the witnesses was already terminated and direct examination of the second witness in the name of Victor dela Cruz has already commenced when the undersigned granted the Motion for Inhibition filed by the complainants. The complaint filed by Atty. Cajucom, according to respondent, is plainly for harassment purposes.

2. REPLY dated 14 September 2005 of complainant Atty. Norberto L. Cajucom.

Complainant argues that respondent merely relied on the certification of the fiscal on a finding of probable cause while stating that he personally evaluated the resolution of the investigating prosecutor and its supporting documents.

Complainant insists that they filed the Motion to Conduct Preliminary Examination on the ground that the information was not accompanied by any affidavit supporting the charge. The purpose of preliminary examination is to obviate undue prosecution that will jeopardize the liberty of a person from an unlawful accusation.

Complainant avers that there was delay in the administration of justice since as will be noted, this case of Illegal Discharge of Firearm was filed originally against the accused Aldays on 08 August 2002. Subsequently, the information was amended on 27 March 2003. Hearing of their case was held for the first time only in May 2005.

3. REJOINDER dated 03 October 2005 of respondent Judge Renato D. Pinlac.

Respondent avers that the reply of Atty. Norberto Cajucom merely shows his conduct unbecoming a lawyer as he did not tell the truth when he denied the following: a) being a purged judge; b) that he once approached the respondent asking for a favorable resolution on the Motion to Quash he filed in Criminal Case No. 82445 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Mary Lynn Sta. Maria de Guzman" for Perjury: and c) when he denied his attitude of filing administrative cases against judges, prosecutors and adjudication officers of DARAB if he cannot secure a favorable judgment.

Respondent narrates that Atty. Cajucom was telling a big lie when he denied that he approached him requesting for a favorable resolution in a previous perjury case. Respondent avers that complainant even told him what to state in the resolution granting his Motion to Quash. On the same occasion, complainant boasted to respondent about the administrative complaint he filed against Judge Evelyn Querijero and her Branch Clerk, Atty. Frazierwin Viterbo of RTC, Branch 26 and Judge Tomas B. Talavera of RTC, Branch 28, Cabanatuan City, all docketed as OCA IPI No. 03-1749-RTJ. Respondent alleges that complainant files administrative cases left and right if he is not contented with the findings, decisions, resolutions or order of the judge, prosecutors or adjudicators. The administrative suits filed against Judge Querijero, Judge Talavera, Judge Buenaventura and Atty. Viterbo would later be dismissed.

Respondent denies the allegation that there was a delay in the administration of justice, and brands the same as mere speculation unsupported by facts. He points out that it was not shown that there was a malicious delay in the trial of their case.

Respondent vehemently denies the allegation of the complainants that he uttered the words "that as long as I am the judge of this Court, I can do what I want." He recalls that the statement he made at that time was "that as long as I am the Judge of this sala, I will apply the rule of law." He brands as bereft of any factual basis the claim of complainants that despite protest he reset the case. He clarifies that there is a big difference between resetting and continuance. In resetting, nothing was undertaken while continuance means for lack of material time or due to some other justifiable reasons, the continuation of proceeding could not proceed. According to respondent, during the scheduled hearing on 15 June 2005 the witness for the prosecution was presented but because there was no more time to continue the examination, an order of continuance was issued.

4. REPLY to REJOINDER dated 20 October 2005 of the complainant Atty. Norberto Cajucom.

Complainant states that if ever he filed criminal and administrative charges against judges and other officials mentioned by Judge Pinlac, it was because his clients were aggrieved and that the procedures taken by the concerned judges and officials were in violation of the Rules of Procedure.

Complainant alleges that on 05 May 2005 they agreed to proceed on trial relying on the word of respondent Judge Pinlac, who assured them that he would set the hearing of the case speedily in order to terminate the same immediately. But the respondent judge tried the case belatedly.

Complainant avers that respondent should have known that he is mandated by law to administer justice speedily as provided in the circulars of the Supreme Court and RA 8493, which requires a time limit for trial and resolving a criminal proceeding which should not exceed 180 days.

The OCA, thereafter, made the following evaluation and recommendation:

EVALUATION: The complaint is devoid of merit.

It has been consistently ruled by the Court that "filing an administrative complaint against a judge is not an appropriate remedy wherein judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the assailed order, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed order to the higher court for review and correction." (Atty. Rex JM A. Fernandez v. Court of Appeals Associate Justice Versola, et al., AM No. CA-04-40, August 13, 2004 ).

The issues raised by the complainant pertain to respondent's exercise of his judicial functions. The Court has also emphasized that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where judicial remedy exists and is available. Consequently, if complainant disagrees with the respondent judge's order, his remedy is to question the same in an appropriate proceeding rather than file an administrative complaint which is not a substitute or supplementary to judicial remedies.

Besides, the complaint is not supported by evidence. The records of the case show that complainants and their counsel only made bare allegations but was unable to adduce evidence in support of their complaint. Likewise, bias and partiality cannot be presumed from the allegations in the complaint. Apart from the bare allegations, there must be convincing proof that would show that respondent judge is indeed biased and partial. It is settled that in administrative proceedings the burden of proof that respondent committed the act complained of rests on complainant. Failing in this, the complaint must be dismissed. (Arejola v. Perg, AM No. RTJ-98-1398, February 24, 1998 ).

It is a matter of public policy that in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corrupt motive, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. (Bacquiren v. Del Rosario-Cruz, 244 SCRA 702).

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court our recommendation that instant administrative case be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court agrees with the OCA.

Indeed, it is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant. [1] cralaw In fact, if the complainant upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. [2] cralaw Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee or magistrate is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. [3] cralaw

Moreover, as aptly pointed out by the OCA, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative, for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. [4] 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 judgment. [5] cralaw It is likewise settled that the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the assailed decision or order, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. [6] cralaw An administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by an order or judgment, for until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether the respondent judge is administratively liable. [7] cralaw

CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against Judge Renato D. Pinlac for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Ejercito v. Suerte, 457 Phil. 368, 376 (2003), citing Cea v. Paguio , A.M. No. MTJ-03-1479 397 SCRA 494 (2003).

[2] cralaw See Boyboy v. Yabut, Jr., 449 Phil. 664, 668 (2003).

[3] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Legaspi , 453 Phil. 459 (2003).

[4] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o , A.M. No. RTJ-93-955, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 174, 194.

[5] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 448 Phil. 37, 42 (2003).

[6] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 377, 382, citing Balsamo v. Suan, 411 SCRA 189 (2003).

[7] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, supra, at 44.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com