ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2239-RTJ. March 20, 2006]
RE: WILLIAM LIM v. JUDGE DIONISIO C. SISON, RTC, BRANCH 39, LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court Dated MAR. 20, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2239-RTJ (Re: William Lim v. Judge Dionisio C. Sison, RTC, Branch 39, Lingayen, Pangasinan)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
1. COMPLAINT dated March 16, 2005 of William Lim, charging Judge Dionisio C. Sison with Gross Partiality and Grave Abuse of Discretion relative to Civil Case No. 215-V-03 entitled "Sps. Eng (sic) Koc Ching, et al. v. WL Manufacturing Corp."
Complainant is the owner of WL Manufacturing Corp. He narrates that on August 24, 1994, the plaintiffs in the aforementioned Civil Case No. 215-V-03 originally filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title with Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 4454-V-94, against WL Manufacturing Corp., Alberto del Rosario, Engr. Perfecto Francisco and the Register of Deeds of Valenzuela. On June 2, 2003, the RTC, Branch 172 dismissed Civil Case No. 4454-V-94 without prejudice upon the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Alberto del Rosario on the ground that none of the plaintiffs signed the Verification-Certification of the Complaint in contravention of Sec. 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [1] cralaw Several parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration, which were all denied. Defendant Alberto del Rosario wanted to pursue his counterclaim and third party claim in the same action, while defendant WL Manufacturing wanted the Dismissal Order to be with prejudice. On the other hand, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. After the denial of the motions for reconsideration, both WL Manufacturing and Alberto del Rosario filed their respective petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the Orders of RTC, Branch 172. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied both petitions through a Decision rendered on April 19, 2004.
Parenthetically, Civil Case No. 215-V-03, entitled "Sps. Eng (sic) Koc Ching, et al. v. WL Manufacturing Corp.", involving the same parties and cause of action in Civil Case No. 4454-V-94, was filed sometime in September 2003 and was raffled to respondent who was then Acting Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 75. Complainant-defendant William Lim and his co-defendant Alberto del Rosario moved for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 215-V-03 on the ground of litis pendentia constituting forum shopping since the previous case (Civil Case No. 4454-V-94) is still pending with the Court of Appeals. Consequently, respondent Judge issued his Order of March 3, 2004, dismissing Civil Case No. 215-V-03 on the ground of forum shopping.
However, on June 18, 2004, acting on plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, respondent Judge reconsidered and set aside his Order of March 3, 2004; gave due course to Civil Case No. 215-V-03 and directed defendants to file their respective responsive pleadings. Respondent Judge based his reversal, inter alia , on the April 19, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals denying defendants' petitions for certiorari of Civil Case No. 4454-V-94 with the ruling that the re-filing of the complaint by plaintiffs had finally and effectively rendered defendants' petitions moot and academic.
Thus, complainant now avers that respondent Judge is grossly partial against defendants in Civil Case No. 215-V-03 when he suddenly reversed his position and proceeded to require defendants to file their responsive pleadings when respondent is well aware that the Court of Appeals' Decision had not yet become final upon the timely filing of motions for reconsideration by defendants. Besides, any disposition in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in favor of defendants would create the undesirable situation of a clash of dispositions between a superior court and the trial court, aside from the resulting waste of time and resources of the trial court. Complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied by respondent in the August 30, 2004 Order.
Plaintiffs accordingly file their motion to declare defendants in default on September 29, 2004. Defendants, on the other hand, filed their Motion for Recusation in November, 2004. Complainant further avers that respondent's action on the foregoing motions clearly showed his partiality. Respondent deliberately did not resolve complainant's motion for recusation even after hearing and the parties had ventilated their positions. On the other hand, plaintiffs' motion was favorably granted through an Order, dated January 7, 2005, declaring defendants in default. Moreover, complainant contends that it was only after the respondent was informed that the newly appointed permanent RTC judge of Branch 75 was about to assume the position that he issued the aforesaid order.
2. COMMENT dated May 24, 2005 of respondent Judge Dionisio C. Sison.
In his Comment, Judge Sison vehemently denies being grossly partial, much less gravely abusing his discretion in handling Civil Case No. 215-V-03. Respondent Judge asserts that his June 18, 2004 Order reversing his prior Order of March 3, 2004 is in accord with law for the petitions for certiorari filed by defendants have already been denied by the Court of Appeals on April 19, 2004, with the ruling, inter alia , thus:
"Over and above the foregoing considerations, the fact that private respondents have already re-filed their complaint has, finally, effectively rendered the petitions at bench moot and academic."
Besides, respondent posits that it is also in conformity with the rule on forum shopping that dismissal of a case based on this ground is merely "dismissal of the case without prejudice." [2] cralaw Moreover, it is the honest belief of respondent that the pending motions for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals did not toll the running of the period for defendants to file their respective pleadings absent any temporary restraining order or injunctive writ from the appellate court. Thus, defendants are properly declared in default.
Respondent likewise denies the allegation that the Order of Default was hastily issued, pointing out that the plaintiffs' motion had been duly submitted for resolution having been filed way back in September 29, 2004, its issuance on January 7, 2005 was one of his last official acts and not prompted by any bad faith. Lastly, respondent contends that he no longer resolved complainant's motion for recusation on the ground that there is already a permanent judge appointed for RTC, Branch 75.
3. REPLY dated June 14, 2005 of complainant William Lim to the COMMENT of respondent Judge Dionisio C. Sison.
Complainant essentially asserts that respondent's last minute Order of Default clearly shows that he is grossly partial for plaintiffs. Complainant alleges that respondent already knew of the appointment of a permanent Judge to replace him and that his partiality has already been questioned, yet he continued to resolve plaintiffs' motion while purposely not resolving defendants' motion for recusation. Thus, complainant contends that respondent should have left to the new judge the resolution of the pending issues.
EVALUATION: The complaint must be dismissed.
A close scrutiny of the records shows that the allegations in the complaint have been sufficiently explained by respondent. Moreover, the issues raised in the instant administrative case are judicial in nature and may be best resolved by judicial adjudication.
To merit disciplinary action, the error or mistake committed by a judge should be patent, gross, malicious, deliberate, or done in bad faith, and absent a clear showing that the judge has acted errantly, the issue becomes judicial in character and would not properly warrant the imposition of administrative punishment. [3] cralaw
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against Judge Dionisio C. Sison be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
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.
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Dionisio C. Sison is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Adm. Case No. 04-94.
[2] cralaw Rule 7, Sec. 5, 2nd paragraph which pertinently provides thus:
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice , unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing, xxx xxx xxx"
[3] cralaw Godinez vs. Alano, 303 SCRA 259.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
