ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

OCA-IPI No. 05-2259-RTJ. March 29, 2006]

Federico R. Agcaoili v. Judge Clifton U. Ganay, Branch 31, Regional Trial Court, La Union and Judge Designate, Baguio City

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 29, 2006

OCA-IPI No. 05-2259-RTJ (Federico R. Agcaoili v. Judge Clifton U. Ganay, Branch 31, Regional Trial Court, La Union and Judge Designate, Baguio City)

For consideration is the Report dated 20 February 2006 on the administrative matter submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

In a Verified Complaint dated 12 May 2005, complainant Federico R. Agcaoili, president of the Baguio Country Club (BCC), charges Judge Clifton U. Ganay with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Partiality. Complainant avers that respondent judge is a regular Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge of La Union who was designated by the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated 14 July 2003 in Administrative Matter No. 03-6-349-RTC to handle all BCC and Ilusorio family feud-related cases in Baguio City since all the RTC Judges therein have inhibited themselves.

Complainant cites as grounds for the instant complaint two allegedly questionable dispositions made by respondent Judge in two of the cases, specifically Civil Case No. 4750-R and Civil Case No. 5039-R.

In Civil Case No. 4750-R entitled "Baguio Country Club v. Ramon K. Ilusorio," complainant questions respondent judge's dismissal of the case on the ground that the counsels of the parties did not possess any special power of attorney to enter into a pre-trial from their clients who did not attend the pre-trial with the counsels. Complainant contends that the dismissal could have been avoided had respondent judge studied the records of the case because the same contained a copy of the Secretary's Certificate showing that the counsels were duly appointed to lawfully represent their clients at the pre-trial. Complainant suspects that respondent judge prevented the case from reaching trial stage to favor BCC's opponent, Ramon K. Ilusorio. Complainant however laments that he still had to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals to remedy respondent judge's wrong actuation.

In Civil Case No. 5039-R, an action for damages against Ramon K. Ilusorio for the alleged malicious rigging of the 6 November 1993 bidding for the long-time leases of the penthouse units of the BCC, complainant questions respondent judge's Decision dated 30 November 2004. Per the Decision, the complaint was dismissed on the grounds of prescription and lack of conflict of interest, and moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000,000.00 were awarded to Ramon K. Ilusorio by way of counterclaim, and P4,000,000.00 as temperate damages granted to Multinational Investment Corporation. Complainant contends that it was gross ignorance and grave error for respondent judge to find that Ramon K. Ilusorio is entitled to such award upon a finding that he had suffered besmirched reputation, mental anxiety, and sleepless nights merely as a consequence of his being haled to court.

Complainant further avers that respondent judge issued an Order dated 11 March 2005 ordering the execution of the Decision dated 30 November 2004, despite the pendency of an appeal he had interposed. Complainant avers that respondent Judge's haste in executing the Decision is suspect as it was allegedly devoid of factual basis. Moreover, the Order betrays respondent judge's ignorance of the law as it is a basic rule that an award for moral, exemplary, and temperate damages including attorney's fees cannot be a valid subject of execution pending appeal.

In his Comment dated 29 June 2005, respondent judge elucidates that before handling the 13 cases involving the Ilusorio family feud and the BCC, he had been informed that the cases were proceeding at a turtle's pace and thus, he resolved to dispose of the cases differently. Moreover, he asserts that he regularly reports to the Court his actions on the cases.

He likewise maintains that in resolving the legal incidents in the cases, he did so without regard to who wins or loses. He only considers the evidence at hand. In fact, in 12 of the cases, BCC won in seven and in two of them, BCC was awarded P7,000,000.00 in damages and attorney's fees.

He further explains that he dismissed without prejudice Civil Case No. 4750-R because the lawyers who appeared in the pre-trial conference were there merely to ask for postponement. With respect to Civil Case No. 5039-R, he reasons that he disposed of the case as he saw and assessed it. Regarding BCC's Motion to Reduce Supersedeas Bond and Motion to Defer Issuance of Writ of Execution, he justifies the non-resolution of the legal incidents by reason of an injunction issued by the Court of Appeals.

In his Reply dated 12 August 2005, complainant points out that respondent Judge did not explain the propriety of awarding millions of pesos's worth of damages to Ilusorio. Further, complainant contends that respondent Judge tried to evade administrative liability by explaining that he could not act on the two motions due to the writ of injunction issued by the Court of Appeals.

The OCA in its Report dated 20 February 2006, recommends the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint for lack of merit. It asserts that the acts complained of are all judicial in nature, which as a matter of public policy, are not proper subjects of administrative proceedings. Indeed, there are appropriate judicial remedies a party aggrieved of such decision or action may avail of, the OCA stresses. In Civil Case No. 4750-R, complainant himself admitted that he had yet to elevate the matter to the appellate court. Although it is not clear whether such assertion means there is a pending appeal, the fact remains that there is a judicial remedy available of which complainant himself is aware. The propriety of the award of damages in Civil Case No. 5039-R is likewise a judicial issue.

Citing Flores v. Abesamis , [1] cralaw the OCA held that since the two acts complained of are judicial in nature, they are insufficient to sustain the instant administrative charges. Settled is the rule that an administrative remedy is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available. 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.

With respect to the erroneous order authorizing the execution of a decision pending appeal, the OCA has not found convincing and competent proof that in issuing such order, respondent Judge was motivated by bad faith and other ill motives. For administrative liability to attach, it must be established that respondent was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other motive. In the absence of proof to the contrary, a defective or erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith.

Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Judge Clifton U. Ganay of Branch 31 of the Regional Trial Court of La Union and Judge-Designate of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw A.M. No. SC-96-1, 10 July 1997, 275 SCRA 302.


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