ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-94-CA-J. August 1, 2006]

RENATO T. MALINDOG, COMPLAINANT, versus JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR., JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., VICENTE Q. ROXAS AND DIVISION CLERK ATTY. JOSEFINA SAN JUAN-TORRES, ALL OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 1, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-94-CA-J (Renato T. Malindog, Complainant, versus Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Vicente Q. Roxas and Division Clerk Atty. Josefina San Juan-Torres, All of the Court of Appeals, Respondents.)

Renato T. Malindog, complainant, is a Land Registration Examiner I at the Land Registration Authority (LRA).

On May 16, 2002, Bishop Nilo S. Tayag, Chairman of the Task Force on Priority Projects and External Trade, Office of the Presidential Adviser on Special Concerns, Malaca�ang, Manila, wrote LRA Administrator Benedicto B. Ulep, requesting that complainant be detailed temporarily with his office.

On June 17, 2002, complainant, without waiting for Administrator Ulep's approval, reported to the office of Bishop Tayag. He worked there until September 15, 2002, or for almost three months.

Sometime in September 2002, Administrator Ulep sent complainant a Notice/Order of Separation dropping him from the roll of employees due to his absences without official leave.

Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by Administrator Ulep. Aside from dropping complainant from the roll of employees, Administrator Ulep filed an administrative complaint against him for habitual absenteeism and tardiness, docketed as Administrative Case No. 02-29.

Complainant then submitted to the Office of Administrator Ulep a motion for clarification whether the filing of the administrative suit against him revoked the earlier Notice/Order dropping him from the roll of employees. Again, this motion was denied. This prompted complainant to file with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Quezon City, a petition for mandamus with prayer for a preliminary injunction and damages against LRA Administrator Ulep, docketed therein as Civil Case No. Q-03-50446. Complainant alleged that his separation from the service is tainted with malice and bad faith and without due process or just cause.

On November 30, 2004, the trial court rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of petitioner as against respondents as follows:

1.� Ordering respondents to immediately restore, or restore back, petitioner RENATO T. MALINDOG to his position in the Office of the Land Registration Authority without loss of seniority rights, with back salaries and other monetary benefits due him reckoned from June 17, 2002; and

2.� Declaring the Notice/Order of Separation of August 21, 2002 as null and void for having been issued without cause and without due process.

SO ORDERED.

On appeal by Administrator Ulep, the Court of Appeals (Fifth Division) rendered its Decision ^[1] cralaw dated December 16, 2005 holding that the trial court erred in taking cognizance of complainant's petition for mandamus. His remedy was to appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pursuant to Section 71 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19-99, Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, quoted as follows:

Section 71. Complaint or Appeal to the Commission. - Other personnel actions, such as, but not limited to, separation from the service due to unsatisfactory conduct or want of capacity during probationary period, dropping from the rolls due to Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL), physically and mentally unfit, and unsatisfactory or poor performance, action on appointments (disapproval, invalidation, recall, and revocation), reassignment, transfer, detail, secondment, demotion, or termination of services, may be brought to the Commission, by way of an appeal.

Should the CSC render an adverse decision, then complainant's recourse is to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for review under Section 1, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Unfortunately, since complainant failed to avail of the proper remedy, the LRA Notice/Order of Separation became final and executory.

Instead of filing with this Court a petition for review on certiorari, complainant filed the instant Complaint-Affidavit against Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (ponente), Juan Q. Enriquez, Vicente Roxas, and Atty. Josefina San Juan-Torres, Division Clerk of Court, all of the Court of Appeals. Complainant charged them with grave misconduct, bias, and patent partiality.

In his complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that respondents conspired with each other by making it appear that they decided the appeal on December 16, 2005 when Justice Vasquez, the ponente, was still with the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals. The truth, however, is they decided it only after December 27, 2005 when Justice Vasquez was designated Chairman of the Third Division.

He further alleged that respondents hastily disposed of the appeal in view of their close association with LRA Administrator Ulep, the "buddy-buddy" of Justices Enriquez and Roxas. He even advanced that disposing of the appeal in less than one (1) month is a very rare happening in the Court of Appeals considering that it is of public knowledge that the cases there remain pending for several years before they are decided.

As for Atty. Josefina San Juan-Torres, complainant claimed that she made it appear that the Decision is dated December 16, 2005 although it was rendered only after December 27, 2005.

The complaint-affidavit must fail.

Actually, complainant is assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Thus, his remedy then was to file a motion for reconsideration. If it was denied, he should have filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari. Verily, complainant resorted to a wrong remedy.

As a matter of policy, 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. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. 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. Thus, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge, but to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. ^[2] cralaw

An administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty, ^[3] cralaw which is not present in the instant case.

WHEREFORE, complainant's complaint-affidavit against Court of Appeals Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Vicente Q. Roxas, and Division Clerk of Court Atty. Josefina San Juan-Torres is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Annex "B," Affidavit-Complaint.

^[2] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 377, citing Castanos v. Escano , 251 SCRA 174 (1995), Dr. Isagani A. Cruz v. Judge Philbert I. Iturralde , 402 SCRA 65 (2003), Linda M. Sacmar v. Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio , 400 SCRA 32 (2003), Edgardo D. Balsamo v. Judge Pedro L. Suan , 411 SCRA 189 (2003).

^[3] cralaw De Guzman v. Judge Vil Pamintuan , 405 SCRA 22 (2003), cited in Pitney v. Abrogar, 415 SCRA 377 (2003).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011