ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. OCA I.P.I. 97-280-MTJ.June 21, 1999]

LAURENIO vs. JUDGE BANTOLO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your, information is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 21, 1999 .

A.M. No. OCA I.P.I. 97-280-MTJ (Warlito Laurenio vs. Judge Antonio B. Bantolo, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sibalom-Belison-San Remigio, Antique .)

This is a complaint for culpable violation of the Constitution, abuse of authority, and ignorance of the law filed by Warlito Laurenio, plaintiff in Civil Case No. 670-SR (for ejectment), against Judge Antonio B. Bantolo, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sibalom-Belison-San Remigio, Antique. The complaint alleged that -

On January 19, 1996 I filed an ejectment case at MCTC, Sibalom, Antique presided over by said Judge Bantolo. The defendant did not file any answer but Judge Bantolo dismissed my case, machine copy of his Decision is hereto attached as Annex "A".

I filed a Notice of Appeal last April, 1996 but not acted up to the present, machine copy of the Notice of Appeal is hereto attached as Annex "B".

My lawyer, Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco told me that he had another case of ejectment dismissed by said Judge, in Judilla vs. Delco, Civil Case No. 647-S, machine copy of the Decision is hereto attached as Annex "C".

Then my lawyer's third case, Florentino vs. Sumber was likewise dismissed by Judge Bantolo, machine copy of the Decision is hereto attached as Annex "D".

If Judge Bantolo is angry at my lawyer, he has no right to punish me by dismissing my case because I am entitled to be heard by impartial judge.

I am wondering why the judge could not be disciplined by the Supreme Court.

In his comment dated July 22, 1997, Judge Bantolo denied the allegations of Laurenio and contended that his decision in Civil Case No. 670-SR dated March 13, 1996 was in accordance with the facts of the case and the law. He submitted the following to rebut the allegation that he failed to act on the notice of appeal of complainant:

1. Original copy of the order dated April 11, 1996 forwarding the records of Civil Case No. 670-SR to the Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Antique;

2. Photocopy of the transmittal letter dated April 11, 1996 of the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sibalom-Belison-San Remigio, Antique, forwarding the records of the case to Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Antique;

3. Certification of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Antique, acknowledging receipt on appeal of the records of the case on April 13, 1996.

Based on the foregoing facts, the Office of the Court Administrator recommends the dismissal of The instant complaint against Judge Bantolo.

The recommendation is well taken. As this Court has said many times, disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory to, or a substitute for, the judicial remedies which are available. Resort to judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, is a pre-requisite for the taking of administrative, civil, or criminal actions against the judges concerned. (In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405 (1995))

Indeed, judges should not be subject to intimidation and the fear of civil, criminal, or administrative sanctions for acts done by them in the performance of their duties and functions. The prosecution of a judge is justified only if there is a final determination by a competent court of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment or order and evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance, or inexcusable negligence in rendering said judgment or order. (Flores v. Abesamis, 275 SCRA 302 (l997))

In the instant case, Judge Bantolo submitted sufficient documentary evidence that he had acted on the notice of appeal of Laurenio and ordered the records of Civil Case No. 670-SR to be remanded to the Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Antique. Since his decision in Civil Case No. 670-SR dated March 13, 1996 is still pending appeal in the Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Antique, there is no basis for the present administrative action against him.

WHEREFORE, the complaint is dismissed.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE