ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-1811-MTJ. August 23, 2006]

ROMA FE C. VILLALON v. JUDGE EUGENIO A. DACUMOS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 23, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-1811-MTJ (Roma Fe C. Villalon v. Judge Eugenio A. Dacumos, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, San Fernando City, La Union)

Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator dated June 13, 2006, to wit:

1. COMPLAINT dated 27 December 2005 of Mrs. Roma Fe C. Villalon charging respondent Judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Misconduct and Gross Incompetence relative to Civil Case No. 39259 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Josefina Sibayan" for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

Complainant, who is the private offended party in the aforesaid case, alleges that on 16 November 2000, a criminal Information for Violation of BP Blg. 22 was filed against Josefina Sibayan with the MTCC of San Fernando City, La Union.

On 01 July 2004, respondent Judge rendered a Decision acquitting the accused by applying the "novation theory" on account of the testimony of the accused that she made partial payments of P200.00 and P300.00 to complainant before the filing of the criminal case. He also declared that since the accused has already paid the amount of P36,000.00 out of the principal amount of P30,000.00 in the Estafa case (pending before another court involving the same transaction), the accused can no longer be made to pay the amount of the check. Otherwise, the complainant would be enriching herself at the expense of another.

Thereafter, the prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent Judge issued an amended Decision adopting the arguments of the prosecution and reversing his previous findings but at the same time maintaining the acquittal of the accused on the ground of double jeopardy. In said Decision, respondent Judge declared that the payment of P200.00 and P300.00 or P500.00 was made after the filing of the case in court. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of this court dated July 1, 2004 shall stand for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the civil liability of the accused is hereby amended and the accused is ordered to pay interest in the amount of two (2%) per month of the P30,000.00 loans or the equivalent of twenty-four (24%) per annum to be computed from November 16, 2000 instead of March 1, 2001 as interest or equivalent of P31,200.00, as per today, less the Php6,000.00 already paid, until fully paid plus costs."

Complainant maintains that all the elements for violation of BP Blg. 22 were duly established and that respondent Judge ignored them. No less than the accused admitted that she issued to complainant the subject check as payment for her indebtedness. The drawee bank admitted that the account from which the check was drawn was already closed more than one (1) year and six (6) months from the date of the check. Despite demand for the accused to make good the check, she did not pay her obligation until a case for Estafa was filed against her.

Respondent Judge also misapplied the "novation theory." He wrongly declared that the payment of the P200.00 and P300.00 before the filing of the case constitutes novation. Evidence presented however disclosed that the said payments were for a different transaction and respondent Judge himself acknowledged the mistake in his Amended Decision.

Complainant asserts that the mere act of making, drawing or issuing worthless checks already constitutes violation of BP Blg. 22. Being a malum prohibitum , malice and intent in issuing a worthless check are thus immaterial. It is committed by the very fact of its performance, i.e., the mere act of issuing worthless check (Caram Resources Corp. v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 724, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-849 [1994]).

Apparently, another case for Estafa was filed by the offended party against the accused. The subsequent deposit of sums of money by the accused with the court where the estafa case was pending was in settlement of the civil aspect of said case. This did not exonerate the accused from criminal liability in the BP Blg. 22 case. While payments made by accused in the estafa case diminished the civil liability of the accused, it did not exonerate accused from criminal liability for issuing worthless check. Settlement of the civil aspect in a criminal case is never a defense to escape criminal liability. These are basic and elementary principles that surprisingly respondent Judge ignored.

True, respondent Judge later amended his decision to correct some of the errors he committed but the Amended Decision only highlighted his incompetence and his brazen disregard of law and jurisprudence.

2. COMMENT dated 10 February 2006 of respondent Judge alleging that on 01 July 2004, he rendered a decision in Criminal Case No. 39259 acquitting the accused for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt at the same time was adjudged to be civilly liable. The acquittal was premised mainly on the application of the theory of novation anchored on the payments of P200.00 and P300.00 made by the accused before the filing of the criminal case.

In her testimony, herein complainant (private complainant in the criminal case) revealed that in the Estafa case she filed against the accused involving the same loan of P30,000.00 before the RTC, Branch 26, San Fernando City, La Union, the accused has already paid the sum of P36,000.00. In addition, the prosecution was unable to prove the third element - that the accused was actually served with a notice of dishonor which is a vital element in the crime of violation of BP Blg. 22.

Atty. Roman Villalon, Jr., father-counsel of herein complainant, testified that he sent a demand letter dated 18 August 2000 to the accused but it was received by one Susan Zamoranos, an employee of the accused. According to respondent Judge, such fact does not prove knowledge of the insufficiency of funds.

Procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually served on the accused. Failure of the prosecution to prove that the accused was given the required notice of dishonor is a clear ground for acquittal.

In the case at bar, respondent Judge insists that the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scale in favor of the accused considering that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving knowledge of insufficiency of funds.

The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In turn, respondent Judge issued an Amended Decision dated 02 March 2005. In said decision, respondent Judge admitted that he erroneously applied the novation theory because he misinterpreted the testimony of the accused. After reviewing the transcript of stenographic notes, he realized that the accused admitted in her testimony that the payment was, in fact, made after the case was filed, hence, novation will not apply.

As regards the interest imposed on the accused, respondent Judge explains that the 10% a month interest is excessive and exorbitant. He imposed a 2% per month interest which is the amount he deemed equitable under the premises. He asserts that courts are mandated to guard against the award of exorbitant damages that are way out of proportion to the environmental circumstances of a case.

He likewise expounds that the penalty for violation of BP Blg. 22 is alternative in nature: imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one (1) year, OR a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed P200,000.00.

Respondent Judge reiterates that despite the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he exercised his judicial discretion and declared the accused to be civilly liable.

Respondent Judge further states that complainant, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), initially manifested an intention to file a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. However, the OSG later on filed a Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition because their findings showed that the accused was properly acquitted of the crime charged since there was no proof that the accused actually received the notice of dishonor.

Respondent Judge avers that the complainant deliberately failed to disclose the said fact in her complaint in order to mislead the Court. The failure of complainant to inform the Court of these vital documents that would exonerate the respondent Judge from the charge is reprehensible for judges are not wholly free to defend themselves from every malicious accusation thrown against them.

Respondent Judge likewise alleges that in a number of cases the Supreme Court has declared that "as a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty and corruption, the acts of a judge in his official 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." In addition, "although the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge."

Finally, respondent Judge asserts that based on the foregoing, he has not committed any administrative infraction nor violation of his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

EVALUATION: The charge against respondent Judge is Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Incompetence for his acquittal of the accused in Criminal Case No. 39259. A perusal of the pleadings submitted by the parties showed that the complaint is without merit.

Complainant failed to present sufficient evidence that respondent Judge was motivated by bad faith, malice or other evil motive when he promulgated the questioned decision. Moreover, acts done by a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to administrative sanction, even though erroneous. Their acts become subject of the Supreme Court's disciplinary power only when they are attended by fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith (Abiera v. Maceda, 233 SCRA 520). Significantly, the Office of the Solicitor General sustained the findings of respondent Judge and declared that "private respondent (accused in the criminal case) was properly acquitted of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. There is noticeably no proof of private respondent's actual receipt of the notice of dishonor of the subject check."

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court [is] our recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court agrees with the foregoing recommendation.

As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. [1] cralaw The 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. In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction. The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. [2] cralaw Thus, not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice. [3] cralaw

It must be stressed that administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to the aggrieved parties and the same has not yet been resolved with finality. 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. [4] cralaw If the complainant fails to prove the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. [5] cralaw

The Court thus resolves to DISMISS the complaint against Judge Eugenio A. Dacumos for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

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

[2] cralaw See Abdula v. Guiani , 382 Phil. 757, 769 (2000).

[3] cralaw Rallos v. Gako, Jr., 385 Phil. 4, 18 (2000).

[4] cralaw Quinto v. Vios , A.M. No. MTJ-04-1551, May 21, 2004 , 429 SCRA 1, 7.

[5] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Legaspi, 453 Phil. 459, 464 (2003).


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