Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > April 2012 Resolutions > [A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-198-CA-J : April 24, 2012] RE: COMPLAINT OF MR. PERSEVERANDO FULLERO AGAINST HON. RAMON M. BATO, JR., HON. JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., AND HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, COURT OF APPEALS :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated APRIL 24, 2012, which reads as follows:  cralaw

"A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-198-CA-J (Re: Complaint of Mr. Perseverando Fullero against Hon. Ramon M. Bato, Jr., Hon. Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., and Hon. Florito S. Macalino, Associate Justices, Court of Appeals).- Before this Court is the 02 March 2012 Complaint of Perseverando Fullero against the above-named justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) for gross misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.

In its 09 August 2010 Decision and 21 February 2011 Resolution (jointly referred to as the CA Decision), the CA held PMF Construction, complainant as the President/General Manager of the former, and Rudy Co jointly and severally liable for all the monetary awards to spouses Severino and Melinda Dalangin. On appeal, this Court affirmed the CA's judgment.

Despite the finality of the case, Fullero contends in this administrative Complaint that the CA justices committed a very serious error. The justices allegedly violated the doctrine of separate personality when they rendered him solidarily liable for damages with PMF Construction, which has a personality distinct from his. Additionally, in the absence of bad faith in directing the company's affairs, complainant asserts that he is not legally responsible for damages. He also argues that the court breached the principle of solidary obligation when it ordered him and PMF Construction to reimburse Rudy Co in the event that the latter would be required to satisfy the judgment. For these imputed transgressions, complainant prays that the corresponding penalties be meted out to the justices.

Fullero's prayer is baseless. The "very serious errors" allegedly committed by the justices have already been negated by this Court's Resolutions during the Petition for Review on Certiorari that assails the CA Decision.^[1] When an administrative charge against a judge has no basis whatsoever, this Court will not hesitate to protect the innocent.^[2] Clearly, complainant instituted this administrative case out of fervent hope of appealing a decision that has already attained finality. However, it is an established rule that an administrative action against a judge cannot be a substitute for an appeal and is proscribed by law and logic.^[3]cralaw

WHEREFORE, the instant Complaint against Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr., Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., and Florito S. Macalino of the Court of Appeals is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit."

Very truly yours,

  (Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] 13 June 2011 Resolution denying the Petition for Review on Certiorari and the 14 September 2011 Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

^[2] Espiritu v. Pesta�o-Buted, A.M. No. RTC-02-1681, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 1. 

^[3] Cortes v. Chico-Nazario, 467 Phil. 155 (2004), citing In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, 311 Phil. 441 (1995).