March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. OCA LP.I. No. 07-2557-RTJ : March 23, 2010] ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO V. JUDGE GERALDINE ECONG, RTC, BRANCH 9, CEBU CITY:
[A.M. OCA LP.I. No. 07-2557-RTJ : March 23, 2010]
ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO V. JUDGE GERALDINE ECONG, RTC, BRANCH 9, CEBU CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 23, 2010
"A.M. OCA LP.I. No. 07-2557-RTJ (Atty. Raul H. Sesbre�o v. Judge Geraldine Econg, RTC, Branch 9, Cebu City)
This administrative complaint against respondent Judge Geraldine Faith Econg of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9 in Cebu City stemmed from her alleged failure to cause the satisfaction of the attorney's fees of Atty. Raul H. Sesbre�o, the complainant herein.
In his verified complaint dated August 14. 2006, Atty. Sesbre�o stated that in an Order dated August 29, 1989 in Spec. Proc. 916-R entitled Estate of Vito Borromeo, he was awarded attorney's fees. This was incorporated in a subsequent order dated October 3, 1990. The foregoing orders were affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision dated July 14, 1995 in CA-G.R. SP No. 30134 entitled Raul 11, Sesbre�o, et al. v. Hon. German G. Lee, Jr., et al. Said decision was, in turn, affirmed by us in G.R. "Nos. 124160 and 134874.
Consequently, on March 16, 2005, the CA issued a resolution ordering the administrator and the intestate court, presided by respondent judge, to comply with its decision as affirmed by this Court. Accordingly, respondent judge issued an order of execution on October 4, 2005. Nonetheless, despite the issuance of the said order, no payment was made.
On April 19, 2006, the CA issued a resolution directing respondent judge to ascertain the status of the Order of Execution dated October 4, 2005, and further directing immediate compliance therewith if necessary. To this day, the award of attorney's fees has not been fully satisfied.
According to Atty. Sesbre�o, his attorney's fees remain unpaid due to respondent judge's actuations or lack thereof, particularly: (1) respondent judge's failure to issue an order directing the personnel in the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu to annotate Atty. Sesbre�o's alleged pro-indiviso shares on the titles of the lots in Talisay City inherited by his clients in the intestate proceedings where he represented them; (2) respondent judge's failure to issue an order directing the estate administrator, Eustacio Ch. Veloso, to make payments from his own personal account as he was allegedly solidarity liable to pay the money judgments of Atty. Sesbre�o's former clients, being the administrator of the Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo; (3) respondent judge's failure to direct the sheriff to levy and attach properties, as well as garnish funds, of the administrator, who was supposedly liable with his clients; (4) respondent judge's act of allowing Atty. Alfredo Benipayo and Atty. Fernando Ruiz to respectively charge or deduct their attorney's fees from the share of Atty. Sesbre�o's former clients despite the intestate court's lack of jurisdiction; (5) refusal of respondent judge to direct Attys. Benipayo and Ruiz to return the monies received by them; and (6) failure of respondent judge to comply with the directive of the CA to execute and satisfy the judgment in Atty. Sesbre�o's favor.
In addition, Atty. Sesbre�o assailed respondent judge's Order dated July 12, 2006, which set for hearing the motion filed by administrator Veloso, whereby the latter was claiming additional compensation. Atty.
Sesbreno maintained that the intestate court no longer had the jurisdiction to act on any matter, except to execute and satisfy final orders and judgments upon the issuance of the closure order.
In her Comment dated October 9, 2006, respondent judge stated that the acts complained of in the instant administrative complaint were also subject of OCA-I.P.I. 06-2486-RTJ entitled Virginia Lim-Sesbre�o v. Geraldine Faith Econg, pending before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), filed by Atty. Sesbre�o's wife, Virginia Lim-Sesbre�o, against respondent judge, as well as of a Motion to Cite for Contempt filed before the CA by Atty. Sesbre�o himself in CA-G.R. SP No. 30134.
Respondent judge clarified that the Register of Deeds was not able to cause the annotation of Atty. Sesbre�o's claim on the title of his clients' lots in Talisay City, because of Atty. Sesbre�o's failure to pay the legal fees necessary to cause such annotation.
Concerning respondent judge's failure to issue an order directing the administrator to make payments from his own personal account, respondent judge maintained that the judgment for the payment of the attorney's fees in favor of Atty. Sesbre�o was against the latter's clients and not against the administrator in his personal capacity. Further, respondent judge averred that she did not direct the sheriff to levy and attach properties, as well as garnish funds, of the administrator, since Atty. Sesbre�o did not file an appropriate motion for the said purpose.
Respondent judge also clarified that it was Judge Anacleto Caminade who issued the Order dated May 23, 2001 directing the release of money to Atty. Ruiz, and it was only after she issued the Order of Execution dated October 4, 2005 that Atty. Sesbre�o filed a motion for restitution of the money released to Atty. Ruiz. Moreover, the issue concerning the attorney's fees of Atty. Ruiz is still the subject of another appeal pending before the CA.
As regards Atty. Benipayo, respondent judge pointed out that her order directing payment of PhP 200,000 by way of advances in his favor was a mere modification of the earlier ruling of Judge Ireneo Lee Gako, Jr. granting Atty. Benipayo the amount of PhP 600,000 as attorney's fees.
Lastly, on the matter of lack of jurisdiction to entertain the claim of administrator Veloso for additional compensation, respondent judge averred that she set the motion for hearing, considering that there were oppositions thereto, which include the opposition filed by Atty. Sesbre�o.
On January 2, 2007, the OCA, through then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, informed Atty. Sesbre�o that his complaint could not be given due course, as the error attributed to respondent judge pertained to the latter's exercise of judicial function and, thus, should have been assailed in a judicial proceeding and not through the filing of an administrative complaint against her.
On February 21, 2007, we received a letter dated February 8, 2007 requesting reconsideration of the letter-resolution dated January 2, 2007 issued by Court Administrator Lock.
On even date, we directed the OCA to comment on the foregoing letter. On March 12, 2007, the OCA complied with our directive and recommended that Atty. Sesbre�o's complaint be dismissed, as the issues raised therein were judicial in nature, and since his complaint was premature. As a matter of fact, Atty. Sesbre�o himself averred in his complaint that since the award of attorney's fees was not fully satisfied despite the issuance of the Order of Execution dated October 4, 2005, he brought this matter to the attention of the CA in CA-G.R. SP-30134, where the same still pends. Verily, according to the OCA, the issue is still sub judice. Also, the allegation of Atty. Sesbre�o that respondent judge issued certain orders despite the fact that her court had already lost jurisdiction over the case is not a proper subject matter of an administrative complaint, considering that there are other legal remedies available to him to question the same.
After a review of the records of this case, we agree with the findings and recommendations of the OCA. The records reveal that the filing of the administrative complaint against respondent judge was premature. As admitted by Atty. Sesbre�o himself, some of the issues raised in his complaint are still pending appeal before the CA. Indeed, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available, such as a motion for reconsideration or an appeal.[1] As we held in Cordero v. Justice Enriquez:[2]
It is also worth noting that the errors attributed to respondent judge in the instant case pertain to the latter's exercise of judicial function. In this regard, it is a well-established rule that unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill will, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice, respondent judge may not be held administratively liable in the performance of his official duties as a matter of public policy.[3]
Further, to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous rule or decision he or she renders would be nothing short of harassment and would make the position of a judge doubly unbearable. To hold thus would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of the administration of justice can be infallible in his or her judgment.[4]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Geraldine Faith Econg is DISMISSED for lack of merit."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
"A.M. OCA LP.I. No. 07-2557-RTJ (Atty. Raul H. Sesbre�o v. Judge Geraldine Econg, RTC, Branch 9, Cebu City)
RESOLUTION
This administrative complaint against respondent Judge Geraldine Faith Econg of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9 in Cebu City stemmed from her alleged failure to cause the satisfaction of the attorney's fees of Atty. Raul H. Sesbre�o, the complainant herein.
In his verified complaint dated August 14. 2006, Atty. Sesbre�o stated that in an Order dated August 29, 1989 in Spec. Proc. 916-R entitled Estate of Vito Borromeo, he was awarded attorney's fees. This was incorporated in a subsequent order dated October 3, 1990. The foregoing orders were affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision dated July 14, 1995 in CA-G.R. SP No. 30134 entitled Raul 11, Sesbre�o, et al. v. Hon. German G. Lee, Jr., et al. Said decision was, in turn, affirmed by us in G.R. "Nos. 124160 and 134874.
Consequently, on March 16, 2005, the CA issued a resolution ordering the administrator and the intestate court, presided by respondent judge, to comply with its decision as affirmed by this Court. Accordingly, respondent judge issued an order of execution on October 4, 2005. Nonetheless, despite the issuance of the said order, no payment was made.
On April 19, 2006, the CA issued a resolution directing respondent judge to ascertain the status of the Order of Execution dated October 4, 2005, and further directing immediate compliance therewith if necessary. To this day, the award of attorney's fees has not been fully satisfied.
According to Atty. Sesbre�o, his attorney's fees remain unpaid due to respondent judge's actuations or lack thereof, particularly: (1) respondent judge's failure to issue an order directing the personnel in the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu to annotate Atty. Sesbre�o's alleged pro-indiviso shares on the titles of the lots in Talisay City inherited by his clients in the intestate proceedings where he represented them; (2) respondent judge's failure to issue an order directing the estate administrator, Eustacio Ch. Veloso, to make payments from his own personal account as he was allegedly solidarity liable to pay the money judgments of Atty. Sesbre�o's former clients, being the administrator of the Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo; (3) respondent judge's failure to direct the sheriff to levy and attach properties, as well as garnish funds, of the administrator, who was supposedly liable with his clients; (4) respondent judge's act of allowing Atty. Alfredo Benipayo and Atty. Fernando Ruiz to respectively charge or deduct their attorney's fees from the share of Atty. Sesbre�o's former clients despite the intestate court's lack of jurisdiction; (5) refusal of respondent judge to direct Attys. Benipayo and Ruiz to return the monies received by them; and (6) failure of respondent judge to comply with the directive of the CA to execute and satisfy the judgment in Atty. Sesbre�o's favor.
In addition, Atty. Sesbre�o assailed respondent judge's Order dated July 12, 2006, which set for hearing the motion filed by administrator Veloso, whereby the latter was claiming additional compensation. Atty.
Sesbreno maintained that the intestate court no longer had the jurisdiction to act on any matter, except to execute and satisfy final orders and judgments upon the issuance of the closure order.
In her Comment dated October 9, 2006, respondent judge stated that the acts complained of in the instant administrative complaint were also subject of OCA-I.P.I. 06-2486-RTJ entitled Virginia Lim-Sesbre�o v. Geraldine Faith Econg, pending before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), filed by Atty. Sesbre�o's wife, Virginia Lim-Sesbre�o, against respondent judge, as well as of a Motion to Cite for Contempt filed before the CA by Atty. Sesbre�o himself in CA-G.R. SP No. 30134.
Respondent judge clarified that the Register of Deeds was not able to cause the annotation of Atty. Sesbre�o's claim on the title of his clients' lots in Talisay City, because of Atty. Sesbre�o's failure to pay the legal fees necessary to cause such annotation.
Concerning respondent judge's failure to issue an order directing the administrator to make payments from his own personal account, respondent judge maintained that the judgment for the payment of the attorney's fees in favor of Atty. Sesbre�o was against the latter's clients and not against the administrator in his personal capacity. Further, respondent judge averred that she did not direct the sheriff to levy and attach properties, as well as garnish funds, of the administrator, since Atty. Sesbre�o did not file an appropriate motion for the said purpose.
Respondent judge also clarified that it was Judge Anacleto Caminade who issued the Order dated May 23, 2001 directing the release of money to Atty. Ruiz, and it was only after she issued the Order of Execution dated October 4, 2005 that Atty. Sesbre�o filed a motion for restitution of the money released to Atty. Ruiz. Moreover, the issue concerning the attorney's fees of Atty. Ruiz is still the subject of another appeal pending before the CA.
As regards Atty. Benipayo, respondent judge pointed out that her order directing payment of PhP 200,000 by way of advances in his favor was a mere modification of the earlier ruling of Judge Ireneo Lee Gako, Jr. granting Atty. Benipayo the amount of PhP 600,000 as attorney's fees.
Lastly, on the matter of lack of jurisdiction to entertain the claim of administrator Veloso for additional compensation, respondent judge averred that she set the motion for hearing, considering that there were oppositions thereto, which include the opposition filed by Atty. Sesbre�o.
On January 2, 2007, the OCA, through then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, informed Atty. Sesbre�o that his complaint could not be given due course, as the error attributed to respondent judge pertained to the latter's exercise of judicial function and, thus, should have been assailed in a judicial proceeding and not through the filing of an administrative complaint against her.
On February 21, 2007, we received a letter dated February 8, 2007 requesting reconsideration of the letter-resolution dated January 2, 2007 issued by Court Administrator Lock.
On even date, we directed the OCA to comment on the foregoing letter. On March 12, 2007, the OCA complied with our directive and recommended that Atty. Sesbre�o's complaint be dismissed, as the issues raised therein were judicial in nature, and since his complaint was premature. As a matter of fact, Atty. Sesbre�o himself averred in his complaint that since the award of attorney's fees was not fully satisfied despite the issuance of the Order of Execution dated October 4, 2005, he brought this matter to the attention of the CA in CA-G.R. SP-30134, where the same still pends. Verily, according to the OCA, the issue is still sub judice. Also, the allegation of Atty. Sesbre�o that respondent judge issued certain orders despite the fact that her court had already lost jurisdiction over the case is not a proper subject matter of an administrative complaint, considering that there are other legal remedies available to him to question the same.
After a review of the records of this case, we agree with the findings and recommendations of the OCA. The records reveal that the filing of the administrative complaint against respondent judge was premature. As admitted by Atty. Sesbre�o himself, some of the issues raised in his complaint are still pending appeal before the CA. Indeed, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available, such as a motion for reconsideration or an appeal.[1] As we held in Cordero v. Justice Enriquez:[2]
Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, judicial remedies. Resort to and exhaustion of these remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether civil, administrative, or criminal in nature.
It is also worth noting that the errors attributed to respondent judge in the instant case pertain to the latter's exercise of judicial function. In this regard, it is a well-established rule that unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill will, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice, respondent judge may not be held administratively liable in the performance of his official duties as a matter of public policy.[3]
Further, to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous rule or decision he or she renders would be nothing short of harassment and would make the position of a judge doubly unbearable. To hold thus would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of the administration of justice can be infallible in his or her judgment.[4]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Geraldine Faith Econg is DISMISSED for lack of merit."
Puno, C.J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Cordero v. Justice Enriquez, A.M. No. CA-04-36, February 18, 2004, 423 SCRA 181. citing Mendova v. Afable, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1402, December 4, 2002, 393 SCRA 390.
[2] A.M. No. CA-04-36, February 18,2004,423 SCRA 181, 186.
[3] Dr. Isagani Cruz v. Judge Philhert I. Ituralde, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1775, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 65, 73-74; Relova v. Judge Resales, A.M. No. R.TJ-02-171 I, November 26, 2002, 392 SCRA 585, 593.
[4] Cordero v. Justice Enriquez, supra note I, at 187; citing Guillenno v. Reyes, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ- 93-1088, January 18, 1995, 240 SCRA 154.
