ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2444-RTJ. July 19, 2006]

ATTY. NIMFA E. SILVESTRE-PINEDA v. JUDGE AMOR A. REYES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, MANILA

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 19, 2006

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2444-RTJ (Atty. Nimfa E. Silvestre-Pineda v. Judge Amor A. Reyes, Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, em>Manila)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

1. COMPLAINT dated May 6, 2005 [with enclosures] of Atty. Nimfa Silvestre-Pineda charging respondent with Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Discretion and Failure to Promptly Act on Matters Pending before the Court, all constitutive of Violation of Rule 3.01 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Complainant avers that she is the counsel of one Danilo C. Casasola who is the petitioner in the case entitled "In the Matter of Guardianship/Administratorship Over the Person and Properties of em>Asuncion C. Cortez Vda. De Casasola" docketed as Spl. Proc. No. 04-108906 of Branch 43 of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila. She claims that in the scheduled hearing of the case last June 17, 2004, an informal hearing was undertaken off-the-record by respondent Judge who posed questions here and there to all the present parties including the proposed ward Asuncion Vda. De Casasola. Complainant claims that respondent Judge even commented that "Aminin na natin na pera lang ang pinagtatalunan dito. Huwag na kayong maging plastic." ("Let's admit it that money is your only concern here. Do not pretend anymore.") She also added: "Ano ba ang pakialam nyo kung gusto ng nanay ninyo na matulog sa kulungan ng baboy, hayaan nyo siya." ("What do you care if your mother desires to sleep in a pig pen. Leave her alone.") Respondent Judge also insisted that Manuel C. Casasola be the one to be appointed as guardian for their mother since he is the eldest child and that he had been administrator of their father's property in the past. Manuel Casasola, however begged off due to poor health condition and also to give chance to his other siblings. Respondent Judge then ended the proceedings with a statement that she would issue the appropriate order. No further hearing was held on the case.

Instead of an order however, complainant received on February 4, 2005 a Decision dated December 15, 2004 of the respondent Judge dismissing the petition. For Complainant this means that respondent Judge rendered a decision without resolving first the several pending incidents involved in the case and without giving the parties the chance to adduce any evidence. Complainant also considers worth noting the lapse of almost six months from the last time the case was heard by the court on June 17, 2004 and also the date she was furnished a copy [of] the decision by the court.

Complainant further avers that when she asked for [sic] the court copies of the entire records of the case in view of her plan of filing this complaint, she was surprised to find out that an Order dated April 21, 2005 denying her Motion for Reconsideration (With Motion to Inhibit) was already issued by the Court but as of the date of the preparation of the present complaint, May 6, 2005, she had not yet received her copy of said April 21, 2005 Order. Complainant also brands as totally false the statement made by the court in the said order that "when the parties herein were all called by the court to a conference, the court has manifested its intention to an expeditious resolution of the petition. Petitioner and respondents agreed to this and as such respondent impliedly waived the presentation of its evidence." She adds that this [is] a last ditch effort on the part of the respondent to exculpate herself and contends that if there was indeed such an agreement between the parties to submit the case for decision by the court, how come such matter was never mentioned in the assailed decision when all the other phases in the development of the case were thoroughly detailed and narrated in the Decision. Complainant finds it questionable that respondent failed to state that she was deciding the case based on petitioner's evidence as agreed upon by the parties and that the petitioner is adopting the evidence so far adduced. She contends that when respondent told the parties to wait for her order, they considered it to be referring to the Omnibus Motion filed by the petitioner which in fine would define whether the court would appoint a guardian ad litem and not the disposition of the entire case absent any evidence. She also considers as grave abuse of discretion on respondent['s] part to consider as basis in dismissing the petition the allegation in the Opposition of the proposed ward that "although, afflicted with arthritis she could still manage her properties and will never be an easy prey for deceit and exploitation."

Finally, complainant also finds respondent's act of issuing the April 21, 2005 Order irregular considering the Motion to Inhibit complainant filed with her Motion for Reconsideration.

With all the foregoing, complainant contends that respondent displayed ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion and failed to promptly act on matters pending before her court which are all contrary to what [R]ule 3.01 Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct demands that "a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence."

2. COMMENT dated March 14, 2006 of Judge Amor A. Reyes, Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Manila.

Respondent Judge states at the outset that she is not the regular judge of Branch 43. She is the permanent judge of Branch 21 and her pair sala is Branch 22, RTC Manila. She states that she expeditiously disposes cases not only on her branch but also of the branch to which she has been delegated by this Court. She claims that Branch 43 has been vacant for almost two (2) years and she has reduced the docket of said Branch from 263 to only 6 cases which surprised Judge Geronilla who was the judge permanently appointed to the said sala.

With respect to the dismissal of the subject petition for guardianship, she claims that she stands firm in her decision which was arrived at after hearing the evidence of the petitioner, Danilo Casasola and his witness Tomas Garcia, Jr., the Barangay Chairman of Brgy. 130, Zone 11, District I, Manila as well as the statement of the prospective ward who vehemently opposed the appointment of an administrator and of her son Manuel. Respondent Judge emphasizes that the decision was rendered with the use of sound discretion and after a painstaking analysis of the evidence on record and the applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter. She claims that she not only resolved the Motion to Appoint a Guardian Ad Litem but decided the case on the merits because the prospective ward objected to such appointment and insisted that she could take care of herself and could manage her properties and being the sole and absolute owner thereof she had the exclusive right to choose the persons who would assist her in the administration of the same.

She thus denies all the charges imputed against her and claims that complainant is just disgruntled by the dismissal of the guardianship proceedings because she herself was interested to be appointed as guardian of Asuncion Vda. De Casasola as may be gleaned from her letter which is "Annex B" of the Omnibus Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem and to Cite Respondents in Contempt filed by the complainant as counsel for the petitioner, a copy of which was attached to this administrative complaint.

As regards the quotation of the portion of the affirmative defense respecting the competency of the proposed ward, respondent justifies the same to have been made purposely to get a clearer and more stable stand to lay out the position of the oppositor. She explains that with the knowledge that the parties are related and belong to one family, she deemed it proper to accelerate the proceedings because if lengthened, it would only aggravate the relations in the family not to mention the fact that the proposed ward, who is already an octogenarian, insisted that she could properly manage her affairs.

As to the alleged delay in furnishing complainant copies of the decision and order, respondent Judge emphasizes that the decision and order were released during Christmas season and aftermath of the same respectively.

With respect to her move of still acting on the Motion for Reconsideration despite the prayer for her inhibition, respondent quotes the portion of her Order dealing on the same matter which basically points out that mere suspicion that a judge is partial to a party is not enough to disqualify a judge and that acts of the litigants who for any conceivable reason seek to disqualify a judge for their own purpose under a plea of bias, partiality, prejudice or pre-judgment cannot be tolerated.

As a final point, respondent asseverates that complainant should not have resorted to the filing [of] this complaint but should have pursued her stand up to the Supreme Court if her appeal, now pending before the Court of Appeals proved futile. She adds that this complaint is purely and simply aimed at hindering her application to a higher position.

EVALUATION: In her Comment dated March 14, 2006, respondent judge averred that complainant-petitioner interposed an appeal from respondent Judge's decision dismissing the petition for guardianship subject of the present complaint. Upon verification with the Court of Appeals as to the status of the case, we found out that the appeal was dismissed pursuant to the Resolution dated October 11, 2005 of the Special Eight Division in CA-G.R. CV No. UDK-2504, there being no proof of payment of the docket and other lawful fees. However, there is no entry of judgment yet. Since there is still the possibility that the appeal may be given due course upon compliance and/or such dismissal will be elevated to the Supreme Court, we are constrained to recommend the dismissal of the present administrative case for having been prematurely filed. It must be stressed that an administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous orders or judgment. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review. Where such review is available to an aggrieved party, he should avail of the same and await its resolution. Until there is a final declaration by the appellee court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to hold a judge administratively liable.

Although it may be contended that the issue raised in the present complaint does not really concern the judicial wisdom of the dismissal of the petition for guardianship but the manner it was carried out which would place the issue within the ambit of administrative proceedings, still, we are not persuaded. In the present IPI, complainant basically questions respondent's act of issuing a decision, which completely disposed of Spl. Proc. No. 04-108906 without resolving first the pending incidents therein and without hearing fully the evidence for the adverse party. In accelerating thus the proceeding and disregarding the usual procedural flow of presentation of evidence as well [as] her non-resolution of the pending motions in view of rendering a final decision, respondent is being questioned. We find these actions to be part of the exercise of her judicial discretion, the propriety and soundness of which only the higher courts can rule upon, as these actions pertain to how she appreciated the evidence before her and the disposition of the entire proceedings itself.

The other charges and allegations of complainant are likewise dismissible for failure to substantiate the same. In particular, we cannot agree with complainant in her assertion that respondent failed to promptly act on matters pending before the court considering that it took respondent almost six months to render her decision from the time the last hearing on the case was had. Sustaining her would mean allowing her to base her charge on a matter which she herself questions. As there is no reckoning point to determine the period within which respondent should have rendered her decision, then there is no basis for a finding that respondent is guilty of delay.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint against Judge Amor A. Reyes be DISMISSED for having been filed prematurely.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

Settled is the rule that errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies - disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, and an inquiry into their administrative liability arising from judicial acts may be made only after other available remedies have been settled. [1] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Amor A. Reyes is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Salcedo v. Caguioa, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1328, February 11, 2004, 422 SCRA 426, 431.


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