ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. OCA-I.P.I.-97-362-RTJ.June 23, 1999]

SPS. GERONIMO vs. JUDGE LEACHON, JR., RTC, BR. 224

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 23, 1999.

A.M. No. OCA-I.P.I.-97-362-RTJ (Sps. Renato and Cornelia Geronimo vs. Judge Emilo L. Leachon, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 224, Quezon City.)

This is a complaint for gross inefficiency filed against Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 224, at Quezon City. Complainants are the spouses Renato and Cornelia Geronimo, plaintiffs in a case assigned to Judge Leachon. The complaint alleges that:

3.On February 24, 1997, plaintiffs, herein Complainants, filed a SWORN Complaint docketed as Civil case No. Q-97-30347, in Branch 224, presided by Respondent Judge, entitled, FORCIBLE DESTRUCTION of Inhabited House, with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order, as per copy of said Complaint, ANNEX "A";

. . .

5.Without trial on the merits, respondent Judge issued the unusual Order dated April 7, 1997 which DISMISSED (threw out of Court) the Plaintiffs' Complaint by ruling that plaintiffs "have no cause of action" against defendants when he granted the Motion to Dismiss merely alleged in the Answer dated March 10, 1997, filed by one of two defendants, Dionisio Demafeliz, as per copy of said Dismissal Order, ANNEX "B";

. . .

7.Without giving the so-called "CHINA MAN'S CHANCE," Respondent Judge issued a NOVEL AND UNUSUAL Order of Dismissal of plaintiffs' Complaint itself, after the testimony of a single plaintiff, Cornelia Geronimo, at the hearing of an incident thereto, for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) whose DENIAL was used as a cover-up of said Order of Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint;

In his comment on the complaint, Judge Leachon denies the allegation of the complainants that he had dismissed the case without conducting a hearing. According to Judge Leachon, he conducted hearings on the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants on March 3, 12, and 21, 1997, during which the plaintiffs presented their sole witness, Cornelia Geronimo. In addition, the complainants filed a written Opposition to the said motion to dismiss.

With respect to the application for temporary restraining order of the complainants, Judge Leachon avers that he denied the same since the subject property had already been removed a week before the filing of the complaint by virtue of an order issued on October 30, 1996 by Quezon City Administrator Manuel S. Alba. The demolition was already a fait accompli at the date and time the complaint was filed by plaintiff-complainants last February 24, 1997 and there was no more necessity for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.

It appears that complainants filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Leachon's order of April 7, 1997 and that the motion for reconsideration is now pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 81, Quezon City, to which the case was re-raffled after Judge Leachon had inhibited himself from the Case.

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

The Court finds the recommendation to be well taken. 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. (Flores V. Abesamis, 275 SCRA 302 (1997))

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. (In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405 (1995)) Since the complainants have filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dated April 7, 1997 of Judge Leachon, there is no basis for them to proceed against him administratively.

WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE