ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-95-CA-J.
ISIDRO ANTONIO MIRASOL, DANILO JAVIER, ALLAN VILLANUEVA AND ERNIE ARAOLA, ALL BARANGAY KAGAWAD MEMBERS OF BARANGAY STO. ROSARIO, MUNICIPALITY OF BINALBAGAN, PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL vs. JUSTICE VICENTE L. YAP, 20TH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY
En Banc
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-95-CA-J (Isidro Antonio Mirasol, Danilo Javier, Allan Villanueva and Ernie Araola, All Barangay Kagawad Members of Barangay Sto. Rosario, Municipality of Binalbagan, Province of Negros Occidental vs. Justice Vicente L. Yap, 20thDivision, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.)
A letter-complaint dated
It is alleged that on
Meanwhile, by virtue of the Ombudsman's decision, the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Binalbagan, Negros Occidental issued an order on 6 May 2005 directing Punong Barangay Rodriguez to turn over his office and position to complainant Isidro Antonio P. Mirasol, the latter being the number one Barangay Kagawad, pursuant to Art. 83 of the Local Government Code.
Intending to restrain the Municipal Mayor from implementing the
Ombudsman's decision, Punong
Barangay Rodriguez filed on
On
On
The appointment of complainant Mirasol as Punong Barangay of Brgy. Sto. Rosario was issued on 16 June 2005 by Mayor Emmanuel I. Aranda, but the appointment was recalled on 20 June 2005 by reason of the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals.
While the petition for review was pending before the Court of Appeals, the present complaint against respondent Justice was filed. The complaint alleges that:
(a) The issuance of the TRO runs counter to Art. 132 of the Local Government Code. A TRO is no longer necessary since the respondent in an Ombudsman case is already placed under preventive suspension;
(b) The issuance of the TRO has given dismissed Punong Barangay Rodriguez the opportunity to continue taking his honoraria since 21 September 2004 up to the present, as evidenced by the payroll submitted by complainants; and
(c) The TRO is grossly disadvantageous to the Local Government because it is quite difficult to recover the amounts received by the dismissed Punong Barangay during the period of his preventive suspension in the event that his dismissal is affirmed.
The Court required respondent Justice Yap to comment on the
complaint. In his Comment dated
In their Reply dated
The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation. In its Memorandum dated
Perusal of the letter-complaint shows that while it is directed against respondent Justice Yap, the same is in fact a complaint against the 20th Division of the Court of Appeals, as it seeks to reverse the TRO issued not by respondent justice as a personal act, but by the 20th Division after due consultation and deliberation. The OCA found that the issues raised are actually judicial in nature, for which there are judicial remedies. The instant administrative complaint is therefore not the proper remedy. An administrative complaint is not the 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. [2] cralaw It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have opened or closed. [3] cralaw
The OCA further observed that the grant or denial of an application for a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction is a matter subject to the discretion of the court. Complainants claim that the issuance of the TRO violated the Local Government Code. However, the same cannot be determined unless and until the legal issues involved are resolved, and an administrative case is not the proper forum for such resolution. Judges are allowed reasonable latitude in the disposition of a case, allowing him to decide based on his appreciation of the facts and understanding of the applicable law on the matter. If any error is committed, it is an error of judgment for which a judge may not be held administratively liable in the absence of any showing of bad faith, malice, or corrupt practice. [4] cralaw
The OCA likewise observed that the letter-complaint is a clear manifestation of harassment against respondent justice, as shown by complainant's own asseveration in their Reply that they will withdraw the complaint if respondent justice were to set aside the assailed TRO. The Court does not shirk from its responsibility to imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary, but at the same time, it will not hesitate to shield the same employees from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. Hence, A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC was issued, which provides in part that should an administrative complaint filed against any Justice of the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any Judge of the lower courts in connection with a case in court is shown to be clearly unfounded and baseless and intended to harass the respondent, the complainant may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.
The OCA adds that as a rule, to assure observance of the high standards expected of members of the judiciary, the Court should be the last to deter or discourage parties from taking steps against the judge's actuations for a legitimate sense of grievance. However, there is also a need to observe measures to protect members of the judiciary from baseless and unfounded administrative complaints. A judge's reputation for probity is highly valued, and in many instances, his most precious possession, more so for justices of the appellate court as respondent herein. It is therefore necessary to call the attention of herein complainants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for filing this baseless and unfounded administrative complaint.
Finding the evaluation and recommendations of the OCA to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The instant administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Complainants are DIRECTED to show cause within ten (10) days from notice why they should not be held in contempt of court for filing an utterly baseless and unfounded administrative complaint.
The Court further Resolved to NOTE the
(a) 1st Indorsement dated
(b) Aforesaid Letter of Justice Vicente L. Yap, requesting for the immediate resolution of this case. Azcuna, J., on sick leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw With Justice Isaias P. Dicdican as Chairman, Justice Vicente L. Yap as member, and Enrico A. Lanzanas as acting junior member.
[2] cralaw Santos v. Orlino , Adm. Mat. No. RTJ-9801418, 25 September 1998, 296 SCRA 101.
[3] cralaw Flores v. Abesamis , A.M. No. SC-96-1, 10 July 1997, 275 SCRA 302.
[4] cralaw De la Cruz v. Concepcion , Adm. Mat. No. RTJ-93-1062, 235 SCRA 597, 607.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
