ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2242-RTJ.� September 21, 2005]

BUGAYONG vs. ROSALES

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 21 2005 .

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2242-RTJ (Dante G. Bugayong vs. Judge Jose B. Rosales, RTC, Br. 27, Bayombong, Nueva Yizcaya.)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

1. VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated April 14, 2005 of Dante G. Bugayong charging Judge Jose B. Rosales with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Incompetence, Extreme Bias and Partiality relative to Criminal Case No. 4812 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Dewey^Balbas and Marietta Bugayong Balbas" for Estafa and Civil Case No. 6632 entitled "Dante G. Bugayong vs. Sps. Dewey Balbas and Marietta Ann Balbas" for Annulment of Deed of Sale and Certificate of Title.

Complainant is the complaining witness in Criminal Case No. 4812 and the plaintiffin Civil Case No. 6632. He avers that on December 23, 2004 respondent judge issued an order dismissing the criminal case despite the fact that no proceeding has yet been conducted thereon by the latter. He claims that the respondent judge relied on evidence aliunde and not on the basis of his evaluation of the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or what appears on the information. Complainant explains that "a careful scrutiny of the Order dismissing the criminal case would patently show that the respondent judge in effect already made a judgment as to the weight and credence of the evidences adduced in the on-going trial of Civil Case No. 6632 and he as well already gave judgment on the credibilities of the two (2) witnesses already presented in the trial of Civil Case No. 6632." He argues that the respondent's action clearly reflects his extreme bias and partiality against him.

2. COMMENT dated May 20, 2005 of respondent Jose B. Rosales.

Respondent Judge admits that no proceedings has yet been taken when he issued the Order dated December 23, 2004 dismissing the Criminal Case No. 4812 pursuant to Sec. 6(a), Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Respondent judge avers that when he received the records of the aforesaid criminal case, he merely reviewed the documents forwarded by the Prosecution and found no probable cause to indict the accused therein. Respondent judge claims that he followed exactly the doctrines (Soliven vs. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393; Cruz vs. People, 233 SCRA 439 and Delos Santos-Reyes vs. Montesa Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-983, August 7, 1995) cited by the complainant in his complaint.

Respondent refutes the allegation of the complainant that he relied on evidence aliunde and not on his evaluation of the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or what appears on the face of the information. According to him, he squarely addressed this issue in his Order dated February 16, 2005 when he ruled on the complainant's motion for reconsideration. Respondent judge explains that he is just exercising extreme caution in issuing warrants of arrest by following the procedure laid down by law and procedure, as he does not want to cause injustice by directing the incarceration of innocent persons. Respondent judge likewise denies that he is biased and partial. He argues that before this administrative case was filed on April 20, 2005, he already inhibited himself from trying Civil Case No. 6632 in his Order dated February 22, 2005.

EVALUATION: After examination of the records of the case, this Office finds the instant complaint without merit.

The issues raised in this complaint are judicial in character in which only the courts of law may properly deal with. Questions of facts and/or law on cases decided by the regular courts are not within the competence and jurisdiction of this Office to decide.

Assuming for the sake of argument that respondent judge erred in dismissing the said criminal case, this Court ruled in Equitorial Realty vs. Anunciacion, Jr. (280 SCRA 571 [1997]) that, as a matter of public policy, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous, provided he acts in good faith and without malice. And nothing in the record would show that the respondent judge acted maliciously and in bad faith.

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, and if subsequent developments prove the judge's challenged acts to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all. (Santos vs. Orlino, 296 SCRA 101). If the complainants believe that the respondent committed serious error in his judgment then they should first exhaust the available remedies provided for in the Rules of Court.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

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 Jose B. Rosales is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE