ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1974-RTJ. December 1, 2004]

MARIANO vs. ANTONIO

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 1 2004.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1974-RTJ (Nancy Gonzales-Mariano, et al. vs. Judge Benjamin T. Antonio, RTC, Branch 170, Malabon City .)

Considering the Report of the Court Administrator dated September 29, 2004, to wit:

The following were filed with the Office of the Court Administrator:

1.������ JOINT-AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINT dated 15 March 2004 of complainants Nancy Gonzales-Mariano, Manuel Cimanes and Edwin Ramil charging Presiding Judge Benjamin T. Antonio with Grave Abuse of Judicial Discretion relative to Criminal Case No. 30291-MN entitled "People vs. Jomel Zomil, et al." for Murder.

Nancy Gonzales-Mariano is the private complainant while Cimanes and Ramil are the witnesses in the above-mentioned criminal case docketed with and being tried in the sala of Judge Antonio. On 8 January 2004, accused Jomel Zomil, et al. filed a Motion for Reinvestigation which was denied by Judge Antonio in an order dated 12 January 2004.

Upon receipt of the order denying their motion, the accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On 16 January 2004, Judge Antonio issued an order setting aside his order dated 12 January 2004 and granting the motion of the accused for a reinvestigation.

Complainants allege that the private complainant in the criminal case failed to file an Opposition/Comment to the Motions for Reinvestigation and Reconsideration filed by the accused as only the Office of the City Prosecutor was furnished with copies of the pleadings.

Complainants thus contend that in failing to provide all parties concerned with copies of the assailed pleadings. Judge Antonio violated Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules on Civil Procedure and committed grave abuse of discretion.

2.������ COMMENT dated 4 May 2004 of respondent Judge Antonio.

Respondent judge denies the allegation in the complaint, maintaining that he dutifully followed the requirement set forth in Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules on Civil Procedure.

Judge Antonio admits that copies of the assailed motions and orders were served only on the Office of the City Prosecutor. He however justified the same by arguing that the public prosecutor is counsel for the government which is the real offended party in the criminal case while the private complainant is just a witness. Consequently, there was substantial compliance with the provision of the Rules of Court. Judge Antonio maintains that his actuations were bereft of malice or bad faith.

Judge Antonio further reveals that the reinvestigation of the criminal case followed its due course and complainant Gonzales-Mariano was even given the opportunity to present additional evidence to support her accusation. The reinvestigation resulted in the filing of an amended complaint against the accused and others who were not previously identified.

EVALUATION: The instant administrative complaint lacks any merit.

The allegations raised by the complainants pertain to issues judicial in nature and cannot be resolved by way of an administrative complaint. It is settled that "an administrative complaint cannot be a substitute for other judicial remedies available to the complaints, such as a motion for reconsideration or a special civil action for certiorari" (Sinnott vs. Barte, 372 SCRA 282).

It is also a well-established rule that "in the absence of malice, fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even if such acts are erroneous" (Sanlakas ng Barangay Julo, San Antonio, Inc. vs. Empaynado, Jr., 31 SCRA 201).

Suffice it to say that if the complainants ardently believe that the respondent judge erred when he failed to furnish them with copies of the subject motions and orders, they should have raised their concerns by availing themselves of the remedies provided under the Rules of Court instead of filing the instant administrative complaint. In Gomez vs. Belan (292 SCRA 151), the Court explicitly held that "administrative proceedings against judges are not acceptable substitutes for judicial remedies prescribed by law to correct supposed errors of the latter acting within the scope of their jurisdiction and function, or even upon the claim that said judges have acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion." (Emphasis supplied)

RECOMMENDATION:

We respectfully submit for consideration of the Honorable Court our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against Judge Benjamin T. Antonio of the Regional Trial Court RTC (Branch 170), Malabon City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts on record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

Accordingly, the administrative complaint against Judge Benjamin T. Antonio is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE