ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 12 2005.
OCA-IPI No. 03-1873-RTJ (University of the Philippines, through its Board of Regents, represented by Francisco Nemenzo, et al. vs. Judge Rogelio M. Pizarro, RTC, Br. 222, Quezon City.)
For consideration is the administrative complaint dated 18 September 2003 filed by Messrs. Francisco Nemenzo and Gil G. Gotiangco, Jr. II (complainants), President of the University of the Philippines (UP) and Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs of UP Diliman, respectively, against Presiding Judge Rogelio M. Pizarro (Judge Pizarro) of Regional Trial Court, Branch 222 of Quezon City. The charges are knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, manifest partiality, gross incompetence and violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA No. 3019) in connection with Civil Case No. Q03-49076 entitled "Luis Menor, et al. v. Jorge H. Chin, et al."
Civil Case No. Q03-49076 is a complaint for rescission of sale, among others, [1] cralaw over a parcel of land popularly known as the UP Arboretum. Complainants claim that UP is the registered owner of the property but squatters, Abdul Raof Dimaporo (Dimaporo) and Luis Menor (Menor) [2] cralaw among them, occupied the same. Members of the UP Diliman Police task force on anti-squatting led by Major Bernie Baltazar (Baltazar) evicted the squatters four times. Judge Pizarro, before whose sala Civil Case No. Q03-49076 was raffled, issued a writ of preliminary injunction against Baltazar. Complainants allege that armed with said writ, Dimaporo together with 400 other persons re-entered and took control of the UP Arboretum.
Complainants assert that the writ's issuance gives the impression that UP as an institution is being restrained although it is not a party to Civil Case No. Q03-49076. They herein contend that Dimaporo's complaint should have been dismissed outright by Judge Pizarro on the ground of failure to present any cause of action. More particularly, complainants charge Judge Pizarro with:
1. Manifest partiality and gross incompetence for-
a.�� Failing to act on Baltazar's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Quash Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and Chin and Mallari's Omnibus Motion for Contempt despite urgency of the matters raised therein; and
b. Issuing the writ of preliminary injunction despite the knowledge that the writ would operate to alter the status quo of the property to the detriment of UP.
2. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, manifest partiality and gross incompetence for-
a. "[N]on-impleading and/or non-recognition of the right of UP"
b. Admitting in evidence the deed of sale which failed to comply with the requirements of Section 201 of the NIRC;
c. Giving due course to a fatally defective complaint which failed to identify the metes and bounds of the property subject of the complaint; and
d. Issuing the writ of preliminary injunction on the basis of inadmissible evidence. [3] cralaw
3. Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for-
a. Failing to rectify errors of judgment at the earliest possible time so as to prevent undue injury to government property and to ensure the security of UP constituents. [4] cralaw
In his Comment dated 5 November 2003, Judge Pizarro explains that Baltazar's motion to dismiss was not acted upon because he was absent on the scheduled hearing date. On the successive hearing dates of the main case, Baltazar's counsel, Atty. Hife, failed to bring the matter to the court's attention. The motion was eventually overtaken by the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.
Judge Pizarro explains further that the other motions [5] cralaw were not acted upon because Menor's "Motion to Intervene" alleging that he did not authorize anyone to file the complaint had to be resolved first. Since Menor is a principal party-plaintiff, his actual participation in the case had to be determined immediately. Menor's "Motion to Intervene" was eventually not acted upon because Baltazar filed a motion for inhibition against Judge Pizarro which the latter posits he granted on the ground of delicadeza.
Judge Pizarro also asserts that complainants have no basis in saying that he did not want to recognize UP's rights over the property or that he refused purposely to implead UP in the case. UP exerted no effort to intervene, its only involvement being Baltazar's and Atty. Hife's assertion that UP owns the property subject of the case. Judge Pizarro adds that plaintiff's motion to implead additional defendants does not support UP's contention that it had become a party to the case. Said motion sought the inclusion, not of UP but, of Chancellor Roman and Vice-Chancellor Gotiangco in their private capacities.
Judge Pizarro denies the allegation that he admitted and used the deed of sale as basis for the issuance of the injunctive writ. He claims that there was no ruling yet on the evidence of the parties. The allegations and respective testimony of Dimaporo and his witness-caretaker [6] cralaw allegedly prompted him to issue the writ. He adds that the writ was issued, among others, to avert untoward incidents or hostilities from taking place at the UP Arboretum.
After evaluating the allegations of the administrative complaint and the explanations propounded by Judge Pizarro relative thereto, we sustain the conclusion of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that there is no basis for holding Judge Pizarro administratively liable.
The OCA asseverates that the standards for administrative liability to attach prescribed in numerous cases have not been met in this case, to wit:
1. "In order to be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment in question was rendered with a conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate injustice." [7] cralaw
2. "[M]ere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purposes, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or the order itself. Although the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge." [8] cralaw
3. "We likewise find no basis on the charge of gross incompetence. No evidence was presented to show that respondent judge failed to consider a basic and elemental rule or principle in the discharge of his duties." [9] cralaw
4. Regarding subsection (e), Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Court has ruled that "mere bad faith or partiality or negligence per se are not enough for one to be held liable under the law since the act of bad faith or partiality must in the first place be evident or manifest respectively, while the negligent deed should both be gross and inexcusable. It is further required that any or all of these modalities ought to result in undue injury to a specific party." [10] cralaw
Judge Pizarro's explanations relative to his actions in Civil Case No. Q03-49076 satisfactorily rebut the charges in the complaint according to the OCA. He could not be held administratively liable for manifest partiality and gross incompetence on the basis of the allegations. The OCA likewise holds that Judge Pizarro cannot be held liable for issuing the writ of preliminary injunction because said issuance finds justification in the allegations of the plaintiffs and the respective testimonies in court by Dimaporo and his witness.
As for not recognizing UP's rights in Civil Case No. Q03-49076, the OCA posits that it would be unfair to pin culpability on Judge Pizarro on this ground. It is not the judge's responsibility to implead UP as a party; rather, UP should have taken proper legal action for the court to recognize its interests in the case. As the OCA adds, "Laws come to the assistance of the vigilant, not of the sleeping."
Moreover, the OCA holds that questions relative to the evidence are premature. They could not have such relevance yet as to warrant a review as there has not even been a trial on the merits yet. The contention that the complaint should have been dismissed outright is judicial in character. The OCA stresses that it should be addressed to the discretion of respondent as judge and not in an administrative complaint.
Finally, the OCA states that there is no basis to hold Judge Pizarro responsible for the alleged damage to the properties inside the UP Arboretum. These were caused by the illegal settlers whose actuations cannot be traced to respondent judge. As the OCA elucidates, it would be unreasonable to hold Judge Pizarro liable for gross incompetence and failure to perform official duties resulting in favoring another party and causing undue injury to government property or violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act [Section 3(e)] based on mere allegations.
The OCA concludes that substantial evidence, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases, has not been met in this case. The presumption that respondent judge has regularly performed his official duties therefore prevails which warrants the dismissal of this case 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 Presiding Judge Rogelio M. Pizarro of RTC, Branch 222 of Quezon City is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw The other reliefs sought are reconveyance and damages with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
[2] cralaw The plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q03-49076. They filed the case against Jorge Chin, Renato Mallari and Major Bernie Baltazar, officer-in-charge of the UP Diliman Police (UPDP).
[3] cralaw Report of the OCA, p. 5.
[4] cralaw Id. at 6.
[5] cralaw These included Baltazar's motion to quash the writ of preliminary injunction, and Chin and Mallari's motion to hold the plaintiffs in contempt of court.
[6] cralaw They testified that they were threatened by Baltazar and his men with high-powered guns and some of Dimaporo's companions who resisted eviction were manhandled.
[7] cralaw Bentulan, et al., v. Bentulan-Mercado, et al., G.R. No. 138906, 13 December 2004, 446 SCRA 150, 162.
[8] cralaw Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation, Inc. v. Pizarro, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1750, 14 January 2005, 448 SCRA 140, 156.
[9] cralaw Cordero v. Enriquez, A.M. No. CA-04-36, 18� February 2004, 423� SCRA 181, 187.
[10] cralaw Sistoza v. Desierto, G.R. No.� 144784, 3 September 2002, 388 SCRA 307, 324.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
