ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA. IPI No. 04-1997-RTJ. February 2, 2005]

VELASCO vs. MADRONA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 2 2005 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1997-RTJ (Atty. Epimaco A. Velasco vs. Judge Fortunito L. Madrona, Regional Trial Court, Branch 260, Para�aque City.)

Considering the Report dated November 9, 2004 of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

1. VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated 16 April 2004 of Atty. Epimaco A. Velasco charging Judge Fortunito L. Madrona with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Evident Bad Faith and Manifest Partiality relative to Civil Case No. 03-0307 entitled "Gemma Caballero vs. Epimaco A. Velasco" for Support and Support Pendente Lite.

Complainant, who is the respondent in the aforementioned civil case, alleges that on 26 June 2003 a complaint for Support was filed against him by the petitioner before the RTC, branch 260, Para�aque City presided by respondent. He avers that due to respondent's gross ignorance of basic law and misappreciation of facts, he was declared in default in an Order dated 12 September 2003. On 23 September 2003, he filed an Omnibus Motion with Prayer to Admit his Answer. However, pending the resolution of said motion, respondent with evident bad faith and manifest partiality towards petitioner Caballero, allowed the presentation of the latter's evidence ex parte .

On 3 February 2004, respondent issued an order denying complainant's Omnibus Motion and directed complainant to provide petitioner Caballero a support pendente lite separate and distinct from that of his alleged children. Complainant assails said order of respondent as given with evident bad faith and manifest partiality considering that petitioner Caballero did not pray for any support for herself.

Complainant argues that respondent should be held liable for gross ignorance of the law for ordering him to provide support pendente lite to a "self-proclaimed paramour". He points out that under Art. 195 of the Family Code, among those obliged to support each other are the spouses. The duty of mutual support between spouses presupposes marriage between the parties, hence, he does not have any obligation to support petitioner Caballero because there is no valid marriage existing between them.

In his COMMENT dated 17 June 2004, respondent avers that he does not personally know any of the parties in the case and that he made the assailed order of 3 February 2004 in good faith and without malice. He does not claim to be perfect and exceptional nor an expert in any matter of concern, whether in law or in any affair in life but he strives hard to be perfect.

He acknowledges that the petition for support filed by petitioner Caballero is for the support of her and complainant's minor children and not for herself. As a matter of fact, he only noticed the flaw of his 3 February order when he received a copy of the instant complaint. According to respondent, he personally crafted the assailed 3 February order and since there were several matters he had to delved (sic) into, he inadvertently overlooked writing the word "plaintiff instead of writing it as "plaintiff s two minor children". He explains that the same was an honest mistake brought about by stress and his workload. Upon learning of said inadvertence he immediately rectified the same.

Respondent maintains that since judges are human and susceptible to mistakes, they are given the inherent power to amend their orders or judgment as to make them conformable to law and justice. Thus, complainant should have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed 3 February order in order to call his attention and for him to rectify his inadvertence, instead of filing a petition for review to the Court of Appeals.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: Verification from the 8^th Division of the Court of Appeals reveals that per Resolution dated 13 September 2004, the parties were ordered to file their respective memoranda in CA-G.R. No. 82333, the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order filed by herein complainant assailing respondent's 12 September 2003 and 3 February 2004 orders.

EVALUATION : The oft-quoted dictum that: "As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous" applies in the case at bar. A judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. To hold otherwise would render judicial office untenable for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. The error must be gross or patent, deliberate and malicious or incurred with evident bad faith.

To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. As defined, bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill-will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes. Evident bad faith connotes a manifest and deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.

The element of bad faith is not present in the case before us. The record is devoid of any showing that respondent judge was moved by ill-will or bad faith in issuing the assailed 3 February 2004 order. Respondent judge upon learning that he had committed the mistake of awarding support pendente lite to the petitioner who admittedly is not married to complainant, immediately rectified his error and amended his 3 February order. Such act of readily acknowledging his inadvertence manifests respondent's good faith. In addition, the rectification was timely done as there appears to be no evident damage caused to herein complainant, as there was no mention that he had already complied with the 3 February order of the respondent to give support pendente lite to the petitioner.

In fact, complainant availed of judicial remedy by filing a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the Court of Appeals to seek the reversal and nullification of the assailed 12 September 2003 and 3 February 2004 orders of respondent. Thus, if there be any liability that can be attributed to respondent judge, it is his laxity in the performance of his duty. He should have been more careful and cautious in writing his orders and his workload should not hinder him from performing said duty with care and prudence.

The allegations that respondent erred in declaring defendant in default, allowing petitioner to present evidence ex parte , and granting petitioner support pendente lite may be considered as an error of judgment that can be corrected or brought to the appellate court which herein complainant actually did. As regards the charge of partiality and bias in favor of the petitioner, we find the same to be unsubstantiated. Mere suspicion that the judge is partial to a party is not enough, there should be adequate evidence to prove the charge.

RECOMMENDATION : Respectfully recommended for consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint be DISMISSED and that respondent Judge Fortunito Madrona be ADVISED to be more careful and circumspect in the performance of his duties to avoid possible cases that may be filed against him unnecessarily by the parties.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation thereon to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Fortunito L. Madrona is DISMISSED. However, he is ADMONISHED to be more careful and circumspect in the performance of his duties to avoid possible cases that may be filed against him unnecessarily by the parties.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICH YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE