ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[AM OCA IPI No. 04-1955-RTJ.� September 21, 2005]
GOMOS vs. DE LEON
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 21 2005 .
AM OCA IPI No. 04-1955-RTJ (Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos vs. Judge Raul E. de Leon.)
In a verified letter-complaint dated February 10, 2004, Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos charged Judge Raul E. de Leon, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258, Para�aque City, with Gross Ignorance of the Law relative to his handling of Civil Case No. 03-006 entitled Sps. Lyndon and Queenie Alejandro v. Johnson Geloso, et al. Atty. Gomos avers that Judge de Leon erred in giving due course to defendant's notice of appeal from the RTC decision affirming the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court as the proper mode to appeal a judgment of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is by petition for review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules of Court).
Subsequently, in a letter dated April 5, 2004, Atty. Gomos withdrew the complaint claiming that while the erroneous order of Judge de Leon delayed the case of his clients, no malice, bad faith or ill-motive may be ascribed to Judge de Leon. Describing respondent's actuation as "gross ignorance of the law" may, therefore, have been harsh and unfair.
Notwithstanding this desistance, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required Judge de Leon to comment on the complaint. Accordingly, the latter submitted his comment dated October 5, 2004, admitting that he made an honest mistake in signing the order and averring that he did so merely through oversight unmoved by any malice or ill-motive. His error may be attributed to stress and sheer volume of work, considering that his sala used to be a special court for heinous crimes and is now a special commercial court. He is also the assisting judge of RTC, Branch 51, Sorsogon, hearing cases thereat once a month. Moreover, his error may yet be corrected by availing of the remedies provided under the Rules of Court.
The OCA recommends that the complaint against Judge de Leon be dismissed but that he be advised to be more aware of the new procedures provided in the Rules of Court.
We agree with this recommendation.
The acts of a judge pertaining to his judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary action unless they are committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith.1
In this case, complainant himself concedes that no malice, bad faith or ill-motive can be attributed to respondent in the issuance of the challenged order. Judge de Leon's error could be considered a mere oversight, considering his volume of work and the fact that Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is relatively a new provision which changed the procedure of appeal from decisions of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED. However, Judge Raul E. de Leon is hereby advised to keep himself abreast with new rules and procedures.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Atty. Quinto v. Judge Vios, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1551, May 21, 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
