ChanRobles Virtual law Library

OCA-IPI No. 05-2391-RTJ. August 2, 2006]

LAVELA O. CAMBEL v. JUDGE MARIO O. TRINIDAD

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 2, 2006 .

OCA-IPI No. 05-2391-RTJ (Lavela O. Cambel v. Judge Mario O. Trinidad)

In a Report ^[1] cralaw dated 29 June 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dismissed the administrative complaint filed by Lavela O. Cambel (complainant) against Judge Mario O. Trinidad (respondent), Regional Trial Court, Branch 64 of Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, for being judicial in nature.

The facts are as follows:

A criminal complaint for murder was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Guihulngan against Pfc Bernardo Daanoy (accused) for the death of Pfc Libby A. Cambel. When forwarded for review to the office of the provincial public prosecutor, the charge of murder was changed to homicide. Complainant claims that the case should have been referred to the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military before the information is filed in court.

The accused was granted bail through a surety bond. Upon complainant's objection questioning the legality and propriety of the surety bond and order of release, an order was issued by respondent directing the cancellation of the bail bond on 14 January 2005. However, in the afternoon of said date, he released the accused upon an urgent motion filed by the counsel of the accused. Complainant alleges that the said motion was granted despite lack of notice of hearing. He attributed respondent's action to the latter's relationship with the defense counsel who was supposedly his nephew.

Complainant accuses respondent of being hostile to the prosecution and her counsel.

In view of the above allegations, complainant filed an administrative complaint ^[2] cralaw against respondent for Grave Abuse of Discretion, Ignorance of the Law, Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice, Manifest Partiality and Misconduct in Office.

In his comment, ^[3] cralaw respondent denies all the charges against him. Respondent avers that on the face of the information for homicide filed against accused, it does not appear that the charge is in relation to the office or official function of the accused. Respondent invokes OMB-DOJ Joint Circular No. 95-001 dated 5 October 1995 which provides that offenses not in relation to office and cognizable by the regular courts shall be investigated and prosecuted by the Office of the Provincial/City Prosecutor.

Respondent refutes complainant's allegation with respect to the grant of accused's urgent motion for reconsideration to the denial of his bail. Respondent maintains that the motion for reconsideration is meritorious on the ground that the approval of surety bond is in order.

Respondent vehemently denies that he is related to the defense counsel. He likewise rejects complainant's accusation that he is hostile. On the contrary, it was Atty. Jose Estacion, one of the counsels for complainant, who was disrespectful and contumaciously interrupted the proceedings.

The OCA recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint being judicial in nature, thus:

This administrative complaint should be dismissed. The remedy of complainant is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge, but to elevate the assailed order to the higher court for review and correction. The Court has repeatedly held that an administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is available. Until the appellate courts has (sic) declared that the challenged order or decision is manifestly erroneous will there be a basis to conclude that the judge is administratively liable. ^[4] cralaw

The recommendation of OCA is well-taken.

Indeed, complainant challenges the order of respondent in granting bail to the accused and in not considering the motion for referral to the office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military. These are questions capable of judicial determination. 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. ^[5] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 80.

^[2] cralaw Id. at 1-3.

^[3] cralaw Id. at 49-52.

^[4] cralaw Id. at 81.

^[5] cralaw De Guzman v. Dy, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1755, 3 July 2003, citing Dionisio v. Escano, 362 Phil. 46.

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