January 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions >
[OCA-IPI No. 05-2367-RTJ : January 15, 2007] JOSE GRANADA V. JUDGE MERLIN D. DELORIA :
[OCA-IPI No. 05-2367-RTJ : January 15, 2007]
JOSE GRANADA V. JUDGE MERLIN D. DELORIA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 January 2007:
OCA-IPI No. 05-2367-RTJ - (JOSE GRANADA v. JUDGE MERLIN D. DELORIA)
This is an administrative complaint dated 17 January 2005 filed by complainant Atty. Jose G. Granada (complainant) against Judge Merlin D. Deloria (respondent judge), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Miguel, Guimaras, Branch 65, for gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct and serious incompetence.
The instant controversy arose from the Petition for Declaratory Relief filed by the Municipality of Nueva Valencia, Guimaras before the court presided by respondent judge. The petition for a court declaration that under Section 2 of R.A. No. 7896 (Creating the Municipality of Sibunag in the Province of Guimaras) only one-half of the territorial portions of Barangays Oracon and Concordia previously belonging to the Municipality of Nueva Valencia were included in the new municipality, with the other half to remain part of the Municipality of Nueva Valencia. The petition likewise sought to enjoin the Municipality of Sibunag from implementing the Commission on Election (COMELEC) Resolution dated 30 April 1996, and to compel the COMELEC, by way of mandatory injunction, to include in the lists of voters of Nueva Valencia all qualified voters of Barangays Oracon and Concordia.
Complainant filed his Opposition in Intervention, contending that while the RTC has jurisdiction over actions for declaratory relief, it has no similar jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the COMELEC. Complainant further argued that the acts sought to be mandatorily enjoined are matters that relate to the conduct of an election, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
Subsequently, on 7 May 1998, respondent judge granted the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. From this order, complainant filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of the law.
Apart from the foregoing action, complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent judge with this Court for gross ignorance, serious misconduct and serious incompetence when the latter granted the application for preliminary mandatory injunction in the petition for declaratory relief filed with his court. This was docketed as A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-968-RTJ. The complaint was dismissed by the Court on 4 February 2002, the issues raised being judicial in nature.
On 16 July 2004, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision, dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the issues raised therein have been rendered moot and academic by the promulgation of the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 21 December 2002 which ordered the segregation and amendment of the precincts in the two municipalities concerned. However, the appellate court made a finding that Judge Deloria committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order. This decision prompted complainant to file the administrative complaint at bar. He avers that respondent judge is guilty of serious misconduct, serious incompetence and gross ignorance of the law which warrant administrative sanctions from this Court.
In his Comment, Judge Deloria seeks the dismissal of the instant complaint on the ground that the issues raised therein are barred by the judgment in OCA IPI No. 00-968-RTJ, which case was filed earlier by complainant and involved the same parties, cause of action and subject matter. He further maintains that the decision of the CA did not make any finding that he was guilty of gross ignorance of the law but only that he committed grave abuse of discretion which is correctible by certiorari had been rendered moot by a resolution of the COMELEC ordering the segregation and amendment of the precincts in the two municipalities concerned.
In its report of 9 October 2006, the OCA recommends the dismissal of the complaint at bar, noting that it is but a rehash of A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-968-RTJ which was dismissed by the Court in 2002. Reporting its finding that complainant failed to prove that the error committed by the Judge Deloria was deliberate, malicious or with evident bad faith, the OCA in the same vein stresses that the rule is where the ground on which removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption or incompetence, such ground should be established beyond reasonable doubt.[1]
Decisions rendered by judges are judicial acts. Judges are given reasonable latitude in the appreciation of the facts and understanding on applicable laws. To hold a judge administratively liable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make the position doubly unbearable. It is only where the error is so gross, deliberate and malicious or incurred with evident bad faith that administrative sanctions may be imposed against an erring judge.[2]
Therefore, in light of the recommendation of the OCA and the facts obtaining at bar, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against Judge Deloria.
OCA-IPI No. 05-2367-RTJ - (JOSE GRANADA v. JUDGE MERLIN D. DELORIA)
This is an administrative complaint dated 17 January 2005 filed by complainant Atty. Jose G. Granada (complainant) against Judge Merlin D. Deloria (respondent judge), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Miguel, Guimaras, Branch 65, for gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct and serious incompetence.
The instant controversy arose from the Petition for Declaratory Relief filed by the Municipality of Nueva Valencia, Guimaras before the court presided by respondent judge. The petition for a court declaration that under Section 2 of R.A. No. 7896 (Creating the Municipality of Sibunag in the Province of Guimaras) only one-half of the territorial portions of Barangays Oracon and Concordia previously belonging to the Municipality of Nueva Valencia were included in the new municipality, with the other half to remain part of the Municipality of Nueva Valencia. The petition likewise sought to enjoin the Municipality of Sibunag from implementing the Commission on Election (COMELEC) Resolution dated 30 April 1996, and to compel the COMELEC, by way of mandatory injunction, to include in the lists of voters of Nueva Valencia all qualified voters of Barangays Oracon and Concordia.
Complainant filed his Opposition in Intervention, contending that while the RTC has jurisdiction over actions for declaratory relief, it has no similar jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the COMELEC. Complainant further argued that the acts sought to be mandatorily enjoined are matters that relate to the conduct of an election, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
Subsequently, on 7 May 1998, respondent judge granted the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. From this order, complainant filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of the law.
Apart from the foregoing action, complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent judge with this Court for gross ignorance, serious misconduct and serious incompetence when the latter granted the application for preliminary mandatory injunction in the petition for declaratory relief filed with his court. This was docketed as A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-968-RTJ. The complaint was dismissed by the Court on 4 February 2002, the issues raised being judicial in nature.
On 16 July 2004, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision, dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the issues raised therein have been rendered moot and academic by the promulgation of the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 21 December 2002 which ordered the segregation and amendment of the precincts in the two municipalities concerned. However, the appellate court made a finding that Judge Deloria committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order. This decision prompted complainant to file the administrative complaint at bar. He avers that respondent judge is guilty of serious misconduct, serious incompetence and gross ignorance of the law which warrant administrative sanctions from this Court.
In his Comment, Judge Deloria seeks the dismissal of the instant complaint on the ground that the issues raised therein are barred by the judgment in OCA IPI No. 00-968-RTJ, which case was filed earlier by complainant and involved the same parties, cause of action and subject matter. He further maintains that the decision of the CA did not make any finding that he was guilty of gross ignorance of the law but only that he committed grave abuse of discretion which is correctible by certiorari had been rendered moot by a resolution of the COMELEC ordering the segregation and amendment of the precincts in the two municipalities concerned.
In its report of 9 October 2006, the OCA recommends the dismissal of the complaint at bar, noting that it is but a rehash of A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-968-RTJ which was dismissed by the Court in 2002. Reporting its finding that complainant failed to prove that the error committed by the Judge Deloria was deliberate, malicious or with evident bad faith, the OCA in the same vein stresses that the rule is where the ground on which removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption or incompetence, such ground should be established beyond reasonable doubt.[1]
Decisions rendered by judges are judicial acts. Judges are given reasonable latitude in the appreciation of the facts and understanding on applicable laws. To hold a judge administratively liable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make the position doubly unbearable. It is only where the error is so gross, deliberate and malicious or incurred with evident bad faith that administrative sanctions may be imposed against an erring judge.[2]
Therefore, in light of the recommendation of the OCA and the facts obtaining at bar, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against Judge Deloria.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Litonjua v. Court of Appeals, A.M. No. CAJ-04-41, 438 SCRA 591, p. 621 (2004).
[2] Santos v. Orlino, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1418, 296 SCRA 101, pp. 106-107 (1998).
