ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[OCA-IPI No. 05-2201-RTJ.� August 8, 2005]

DASIG vs. SAYO

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2005.

OCA-IPI No. 05-2201-RTJ (Spouses Miguel Dasig and Josephine Dasig vs. Judge Marcelino L. Sayo, RTC, Branch 45, Manila.)

For consideration is the administrative complaint dated 18 February 2005 filed by the Spouses Miguel Dasig and Josephine Dasig (complainants) against Judge Marcelino L. Sayo (Judge Sayo), in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 45, Manila. The charges are Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Interlocutory Order Through Conspiracy, Grave Abuse of Authority, Manifest Bias and Partiality and Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of Public Service relative to Criminal Case No. 03-218016 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Miguel Dasig and Josephine Dasig" for Estafa.

Complainants allege that on 8 March 2004, they filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 03-218016 on the ground of pendency of a civil case which is a prejudicial question and to defer arraignment thereon until the motion shall have been resolved with finality. Judge Sayo denied their motion in an Order dated 24 August 2004 and set complainants' arraignment on 1 February 2005 although complainants had filed a motion for the reconsideration of the 24 August 2004 Order.

Complainants narrate that their Urgent Motion for Postponement of the Arraignment dated 28 January 2005 was subsequently denied by Judge Sayo. The latter cancelled complainants' bailbonds and ordered their arrest in February 2005, notwithstanding the fact that the arraignment was sought to be postponed because Miguel Dasig had suffered a stroke due to hypertension and his wife had to stay by his bedside.

In his Comment, Judge Sayo denied all the allegations in the complaint. He claims that the orders he issued were based upon the merits of the incidents and not by reason of abuse of authority or bias. Anent the Motion for Postponement of Arraignment by reason of Miguel Dasig having had a stroke, Judge Sayo asserts that said motion did not contain the proper notice of hearing and was therefore a mere scrap of paper. Moreover, the Medical Certificate presented by complainants merely stated that Miguel Dasig had sought consultation because of dizziness and headache not that he had suffered a stroke due to hypertension and was dying.

After study and evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the complaint. The OCA found that complainants primarily assail the denial of their Urgent Motion for Postponement due to Hypertension, the cancellation of their bailbonds and the issuance of warrants for their arrest. The resolution of said incident, according to the OCA, was an exercise of Judge Sayo's judicial discretion. The OCA held that it is well-established that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders.

Moreover, based on the records, complainants were not able to substantiate their claim that Miguel Dasig had suffered a stroke which rendered it impossible for him and his wife to appear in court for their arraignment. As found by Judge Sayo, the medical certificate presented merely shows that Miguel Dasig was treated for dizziness/headache. There was no indication that he indeed had suffered a stroke, thus the denial of their motion.

The OCA concluded that the propriety or impropriety of Judge Sayo's denial of complainants' motion for postponement is a judicial issue that is better resolved in the regular courts. Respondent Judge cannot be subjected to liability for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, so long as he acted in good faith. The remedy of the aggrieved party in such a case is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction. Hence, the complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit.

Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Judge Marcelino L. Sayo in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 45, Manila, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE