ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[OCA-IPI No. 04-1966-RTJ.� August 31, 2005]
LUYM vs. TAYPIN
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 31 2005 .
OCA-IPI No. 04-1966-RTJ (John Luym vs. Judge Aproniano B. Taypin, RTC, Branch 12, Cebu City .)
For consideration are the Administrative Complaint dated 8 March 2004 filed by John Luym (Luym) and the Supplemental Complaint dated 14 September 2004 filed by Atty. Romeo M. Mendoza, Jr. (Atty. Mendoza) against Judge Aproniano B. Taypin (Judge Taypin), in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 12, Cebu City. The charges are gross misconduct, insubordination, partiality and gross ignorance of the law relative to SRC Case No. 21-CEB entitled "David Lu, et. al. v. Rosa Go, et. al.".
The SRC case involves a petition for dissolution of Ludo and Luym Development Corporation (LudoDev) and nullification of the act of its Board of Directors in issuing six hundred thousand (600,000) unsubscribed and unissued shares of stock in favor of defendants [1] cralaw therein.
Luym alleges that on 20 January 2004, the defendants in SRC Case No. 021-CEB filed a motion for the dismissal of the case with an alternative motion to have it re-raffled. In an Order dated 26 January 2004, Judge Taypin denied the motion to dismiss without ruling on the alternative motion to re-raffle. On 12 February 2004, defendants filed a new motion to re-raffle which was granted on 17 February 2004 by Executive Judge Pampio A. Abarintos of RTC Cebu.
Plaintiffs in SRC Case No. 021-CEB filed a motion to recall the transmittal of the case records on 19 February 2004 and defendants filed a comment thereon on 3 March 2004. To defendants' surprise, however, Judge Taypin rendered a decision dated 1 March 2004 on the merits of the case without conducting a pre-trial and hearing. The decision ordered the dissolution of LudoDev and the creation of a Management Committee to run the affairs of the corporation in the interim. The decision also reconsidered the 17 February 2004 Order notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff's motion to recall the transmittal of the case records is a prohibited pleading and the 17 February 2004 Order granting the motion to re-raffle was already final and executory pursuant to Section 4 of A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC.
Luym contends that in failing to implement the 17 February 2004 Order, Judge Taypin defied a resolution of the Supreme Court, which defiance constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination.
In his supplemental complaint, Atty. Mendoza ascribes partiality and gross ignorance of the law to Judge Taypin. In support of the charge, Atty. Mendoza alleges that on two occasions, Judge Taypin granted the nomination/motion [2] cralaw of the plaintiffs in SRC Case No. 21-CEB relative to the Management Committee membership without a hearing.
On the other hand, Judge Taypin refused to act on two motions [3] cralaw filed by defendants before the records of the case were transmitted to the appellate court. Yet, the manifestations/motions [4] cralaw of some lessees of LudoDev, notably, National Bookstore (National), H. Lhuillier Pawnshop (Lhuillier) and Rustan Commercial Corporation (Rustan's) were given due course by respondent judge even though the same were filed after the transmittal of the records to the appellate court. Judge Taypin allegedly cited the present provisions on appeal of the Rules of Court, in denying defendants' motions. He claimed that under the present provision of the Rules of Court, the trial court loses its jurisdiction over a case after the perfection of the appeal and the elevation of its records to the appellate court. However, Judge Taypin justified his actions on the manifestations/motions of the lessees of LudoDev by citing the old provisions of the Rules of Court which allowed the trial court to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties even after the transmittal of the records to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In his Comment, Judge Taypin claims that SRC Case No. 21-CEB has already been decided and is currently on appeal to the CA. According to him, giving due course to this complaint will duplicate the process in the appellate court because it raises issues which could be properly resolved by the CA; hence, the present complaint should be dismissed outright.
Anent the allegations in both the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint, Judge Taypin claims that complainants are estopped from raising issues relative to the Management Committee because the same procedure as to the nomination and appointment of members was imposed on both plaintiffs and defendants. Judge Taypin claims that he actually gave due course to defendants' motions but since the scheduled hearing thereon did not push through, he was constrained to order plaintiffs to comment on the motion instead. The court merely ceased to act on said motion when it lost jurisdiction over the case after the records were transmitted to the appellate court.
Judge Taypin states that he acted on the motion/manifestation of National because it was necessary for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties. In addressing National's concern, he was merely reiterating and clarifying statements he already made in his 1 March 2004 decision with no party being prejudiced. Contrary to Atty. Mendoza's allegations though, Judge Taypin denies having acted on the motions filed by Lhuillier and Rustan's because a temporary restraining order (TRO) had already been issued by the CA at that time prohibiting the trial court from further acting in SRC Case No. 21-CEB.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that SRC Case No. 21-CEB has been elevated to the CA where it was re-docketed as CA-GR No. 81163 and before whose Nineteenth Division it is currently pending.
After study and evaluation, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint. It found that the complaint was precipitated by the actions and omissions of Judge Taypin in SRC Case No. 21-CEB. According to the OCA, it has been held that judges are allowed reasonable latitude for the operation of their individual view of the case, their appreciation of the facts and the applicable law on the matter. If any error was committed, it was an error of judgment and it is important to recall the firmly established principle that a judge may not be administratively charged with mere error of judgment, in the absence of showing of any bad faith, malice or corrupt practice. [5] cralaw Complainants failed to prove any act constituting bad faith, malice or corrupt practice on the part of Judge Taypin.
Moreover, the questioned actions and omissions of respondent judge are matters that may be litigated on appeal as in fact the same are now subject of an appeal before the CA. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the CA has spoken with finality thereon that the door to any inquiry into respondent judge's administrative liability may be commenced, the rationale being that disciplinary proceedings against judges are not complementary to or suppletory of, nor a substitute for judicial remedies. Resort to and exhaustion of judicial remedies and the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. [6] cralaw
There being an existing appeal on the issues raised by complainants against respondent judge, complainant should wait for the outcome of said appeal, and if the result thereof warrants, only then may an administrative complaint be filed against respondent judge. Complainant should not be allowed to seek relief through administrative proceedings and at the same time, avail of judicial remedies as it would sanction harassment against judges.
Finding the recommendation of the OCA to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Judge Aproniano B. Taypin, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 12, Cebu City, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Luym is one of the defendants in SRC Case No. 21-CEB while Atty. Mendoza is the counsel for the defendants.
[2] cralaw Manifestation nominating Mr. Alfredo Quilala as member of the Management Committee and Motion seeking the release of the bond put up by Mr. Edward Du.
[3] cralaw Urgent motion to disqualify nominees in the Management Committee and motion to recall order of release of the bond.
[4] cralaw Manifestation and clarification with prayer to be informed as to who should receive their future rentals.
[5] cralaw Dela Cruz v. Concepcion, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1062, 25 August 1994, 235 SCRA 597 (1994).
[6] cralaw The Officers and Members of IBP, Baguio-Benguet Chapter v. Judge Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1691, 19 November 2004, 443 SCRA 87.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
