ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 28 2005 .

R E S O L U T I O N

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2135-RTJ ( Benjamin Z. Aniban vs. Former Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas [now Court of Appeals Justice], Branch 7, and Judge Reynaldo G. Ros, Branch 33, Regional Trial Court, Manila .)

In the Resolution dated August 10, 2005, the Court dismissed the verified Complaint dated November 16, 2004 filed by Benjamin Z. Aniban of No. 14 Conway St., Eastside Minors, C.J. Raymundo Ave., Maybunga, Pasig City, against former Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas (now Court of Appeals Justice) RTC, Br. 7, Manila, for abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming a judge, and against Judge Reynaldo G. Ros, RTC, Br. 33 Manila, for ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in connection with Civil Case No. 01-101132. The complainant was, likewise, directed to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of Court for filing utterly baseless and unfounded administrative cases.

Thereafter, the complainant filed a Letter dated September 12, 2005 acknowledging receipt of the aforementioned Resolution. He assails the Supreme Court Resolution dismissing all his verified complaints for "lack of merit" and adamantly insists that "all verified complaints filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against RTC Judges, Clerk of Court, Deputy Sheriff were all based, founded, centered and concentrated in the Order issued on June 11, 2002, by the Presiding Pairing Judge of the RTC, Branch 173." The complainant proceeded to narrate once again the events that transpired during the trial of Civil Case No. 01-101132 and prayed that the decision on the said case "be rendered now."

Acting on the Letter dated September 12, 2005, the Court Resolves to TREAT it as a Motion for Clarification of the Resolution dated August 10, 2005. The Court further resolves to ADOPT the findings of the OCA in its Report dated June 27, 2005 which are hereby quoted:

... This Court has consistently ruled "that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a Judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available, such as a motion for reconsideration, or on appeal. Obviously, if subsequent developments prove the judge's challenged act to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all." ( Santos v. Orlino, 296 SCRA 101 ). It is only after the available remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality that the door to an inquiry into the judges' criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened or closed. ( Flores v. Abesamis, 275 SCRA 302, 316 .) Moreover, the respondent judges, being public officers, have in their favor the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. ( Balayon v. Ocampo, 218 SCRA 13, 19 .)

In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. ( De la Cruz v. Conception, 235 SCRA 597, 607 ). No fraud, dishonesty or corruption was proven by the complainant. The respondent judges cannot be subjected to liability -civil, criminal or administrative - for any of their official acts, no matter how erroneous, so long as they had acted in good faith. In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judges but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction. ( Casta�os v. Esca�o, 251 SCRA 174 .)

Mere suspicion that a judge had employed dilatory measures or had been partial to a party is not enough; there should be adequate evidence to prove the charge. ( Martinez , Sr. v. Paquio, 394 SCRA 287 .)

Where the administrative case - as in this instance - is baseless and ill-motivated, it must be dismissed. ( Salunday v. Labitoria, 385 SCRA 200 .) When the administrative charge is "the result of the unfortunate tendency of some laymen, with little acquaintance with court procedure, to attribute malice and falsehood to the courts when things do not go the way they believe they should go," the complaint must fail. ( Ornillo v. Ragasa, 388 SCRA 202 .)

Through several communications dated 22 June, 6 July, 27 July and 27 October, all during the year 2004, sent to the complainant, this Office already explained to the latter that what was set for resolution in the Order dated 11 June 2002 was only the motion to declare Salvacion Redillas and not the entire case on the merits. This Office informed the complainant that respondent Judge Ros' order dismissing the subject civil case finds support in Sections 4 and 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 4 provides that it shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at pre-trial while Section 5 provides that the failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for dismissal of the action. This Office likewise considered the issues raised in the complainant's letters - which same issues the said complainant eventually raised in the several administrative cases he filed involving the subject civil case - as closed and terminated, but he refused to accept such explanation.

The Court will neither shirk its responsibility of imposing discipline upon court employees and magistrates nor hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve only to disrupt, rather than promote, the orderly administration of justice. ( Francisco v. Leyva, A.M. No. P-94-1106, March 10, 1999 , 304 SCRA 365 ) It is imperative that measures be observed to protect members of the Judiciary from baseless and unfounded administrative complaints (Resolution dated 14 October 2003 in A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC.) Considering that a judge's reputation for probity is highly valued, and in many instances, his most precious possession, complainants should ponder well and seriously before filing charges against members of the Bench.

In a Resolution dated 11 October 2004 of the Court's Second Division in A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2015-RTJ (Benjamin Z. Aniban v. Judge Rosario C. Cruz, Presiding Judge, Br. 173, RTC-Manila), the complainant was directed to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of court for filing an utterly baseless and unfounded administrative case involving the same civil case and issues raised in the present administrative complaint. To date, it appears that the complainant has not filed any compliance despite his receipt of such Resolution.

The complainant's attention should be called again. He should be directed to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing another utterly baseless administrative complaint which is glaringly intended to harass the respondent judges in this particular case.

RECOMMENDATION: We respectfully submit the following recommendations for the reconsideration of the Honorable Court:

1.������ The instant administrative complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit; and

2.������ Complainant� Benjamin Z. Aniban be DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be cited for contempt of court for filing an utterly baseless and unfounded administrative case.

From the foregoing, the Court Resolves to REITERATE the directive in the Resolution of August 10, 2005, requiring complainant Benjamin Z. Aniban to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why he should not be cited for contempt of Court for filing utterly baseless and unfounded administrative cases.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE