ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2182-RTJ. August 14, 2006]

VICTOR C. LINGAN v. JUDGE ORLANDO D. BELTRAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, TUGUEGARAO CITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 14, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2182-RTJ (Victor C. Lingan v. Judge Orlando D. Beltran, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City)

Acting on the Report ^[1] cralaw of the Office of the Court Administrator dated July 19, 2006, to wit:

1. A verified complaint dated 3 February 2005 by Victor C. Lingan charging Judge Orlando D. Beltran with Gross Misconduct (Falsification of Public Document).

The complaint stemmed from the case for Annulment of Title and Instrument with Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 5036, and entitled Isaac Villegas vs. Victor Lingan and Ernesto Carreon. On 19 December 1996, respondent rendered a decision dismissing the case. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals and the same is still pending.

Complainant alleged that there was a conspiracy between the respondent and Atty. Calubaquib, the counsel for the plaintiff. He averred that during the pre-trial, the plaintiff did not appear personally. He executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of his counsel. The counsel presented this during the proceedings. According to complainant, respondent deliberately allowed the conduct of pre-trial without the personal appearance of plaintiff. Complainant stated that upon verification of the said special power of attorney with the Bureau of Archives, he found out that the same did not exist

The plaintiff filed its Manifestation and Motion. He adopted the facts as stated by the plaintiff and he prayed for a summary judgment. Respondent issued an Order on December 10, 1996 wherein he directed the parties to file their respective Memorandum within twenty days from receipt of the said Order and granted the motion for summary judgment. On 19 December 1996, respondent issued the Judgment and dismissed the case. Complainant assailed the same because it was issued even before the filing of the Memorandum. He alleged that the same was irregular and done to cover up for the unlawful design of respondent and plaintiff's counsel to prevent complainant to present evidence in his defense and to require the presence of plaintiff during pre-trial.

2. Comment dated 03 October 2005 of Judge Orlando D. Beltran.

Respondent denied his participation in the falsification. Respondent argued that he could not have known or should be expected to know any deficiency in the Special Power of Attorney. He further denied the conspiracy allegation and insisted that the proceeding held were legal, procedural and above-board.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: Judge Orlando Beltran has been previously penalized in the following cases:

1.��� A.M. No. RTJ-98-1406 (September 1, 1999) Evelyn De Austria vs. Judge Orlando Beltran. He was fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law

2.��� A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597 (August 20, 2000) Andres Wilson vs. Judge Orlando Beltran. He was fined in the amount of P2,000.00 for conduct unbecoming of a judge, serious misconduct, inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law.

3.��� A.M. No. RTJ-04-1839 (August 31, 2005) Alberto P. Abbariao vs. Judge Orlando Beltran. He was fined in the amount of P20,000.00 for ignorance of the law, negligence and serious inefficiency.

EVALUATION: The complaint is devoid of merit.

It is a settled rule that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. A judge may not be administratively charged for errors of judgment, in the absence of showing bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose. (Re: Judge Silverio S. Tayao, RTC Branch 143, Makati, A.M. No. 93-8-1204-RTJ, 7 February 1994, 299 SCRA 723). It is well settled that judges can not be held to account criminally, civilly, or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith. (In Re: Petition for Dismissal from Service and/or Disbarment of Judge Baltazar R. Dizon, A.C. No. 3086, 31 May 1989, 173 SCRA 719).

If a party is prejudiced by the orders of a judge, his remedy lies with the proper court and not with the Office of the Court Administrator. (Dionisio v. Escano , 362 Phil 46 [1999]).

In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any showing of wrongful or improper conduct on the part of the respondent judge. Indeed, the charges against him are based on nothing more than complainant's suspicion of conspiracy. This suspicion of conspiracy cannot be given credence.

The issues presented in the instant case are judicial in character. There is no doubt that the questioned judgment of respondent was issued in the performance of his judicial function and was based on the records of Civil Case No. 5036 and applicable rule. The assailed judgment dated 19 December 1996 was in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It has been held that judges are allowed reasonable latitude for the operation of his own individual view of the case, his appreciation of the facts and his understanding of the applicable law on the matter. If any error was committed, it was an error of judgment and, it is an established principle that a judge may not be administratively charged for mere error of judgment, in the absence of showing any bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. (Dela Cruz v. Conception, 235 SCRA 597, 607). An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available and if subsequent developments prove the judge's challenged act to be correct there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all. (Santos v. Orlino, 296 SCRA 101)

The gist of the complaint consists in impugning respondent's judgment. To find merit in complainant's allegations, a review of respondent's questioned judgment becomes imperative - a task for a court of justice in an appeal. The availability of judicial remedies precludes resort to criminal, civil or administrative proceedings against a judge. Thus, disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against a judge are not complementary or suppletory nor a substitute for, judicial remedies whether ordinary or extraordinary. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality that the door this criminal, civil or administrative liability may said to have opened or closed. (Flores v. Abesamis , 275 SCRA 302 [1997])

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

The Court agrees with the foregoing recommendation.

It is 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. ^[2] cralaw Moreover, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even. ^[3] cralaw 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. ^[4] cralaw Moreover, in the absence of cogent proof, as in this case, bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. ^[5] cralaw

The Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative case against Judge Orlando D. Beltran for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 41-43.

^[2] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar, A.M. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 377, 382.

^[3] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o , 251 SCRA 174 (1995).

^[4] cralaw See Abdula v. Guiani , 382 Phil. 757, 769 (2000).

^[5] cralaw Sayson v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1829, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 502, 505.

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