ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1795-MTJ.
RE: REGINALDO R. CAPILI v. JUDGE GREGORIO B. CLEME�A, JR., METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, MANILA
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1795-MTJ (Re: Reginaldo R. Capili v. Judge Gregorio B. Cleme�a, Jr., Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 29, em>Manila)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
LETTER-COMPLAINT dated 24 October 2005 of Reginaldo R. Capili charging Judge Gregorio B. Cleme�a, Jr. with Grave Misconduct, Oppression, Ignorance of the Law and Partiality relative to Civil Case No. 173611 entitled "Antonio S. De la Cruz and Leonardo R. Ocampo vs. Reginaldo Capili" for Unlawful Detainer and Damages.
Complainant, who is the defendant in the above-cited civil case, alleges that respondent judge rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs notwithstanding the fact that the same (case) was filed by an alleged attorney-in-fact without authorization from his principal. According to the complainant, the plaintiff who signed the verified complaint has no special power of attorney from the principal Antonio S. Dela Cruz, thus, depriving him of his property without due process of law.
Complainant asserts that respondent Judge Cleme�a,
Jr. deliberately disregarded the settled jurisprudence that "
An
agent alone has absolutely no right to bring the defendant in Court, the suit must be prosecuted in the name of the principal,
the party in interest.
" (Marcelo vs. Vda.
De
Leon
, L-12902,
COMMENT dated
Respondent denies all the allegations in the complaint. Respondent avers that the complaint arose from the decision that he rendered in favor of plaintiff Antonio Dela Cruz and Leonardo Ocampo and against defendant, herein complainant Reginaldo Capili. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45 presided by Judge Marcelino Sayo, Jr. affirmed respondent's decision. After the decision has become final and executory, the case, upon motion of the plaintiff, was remanded to respondent for further proceedings.
Complainant assisted by his counsel Atty. Velicaria filed an opposition
to said motion. On
Respondent declares that the argument of Reginaldo Capili, herein
complainant, that the decision in the subject civil case was not rendered in accordance
with the Rules of Court and has violated a settled jurisprudence, that "an
agent alone has absolutely no right to bring the defendant in court, the suit
must be prosecuted in the name of the principal, the party in interest. (Marcelo vs. Vda.
De
Leon
, L-12902,
First of all, respondent points out, there are two plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 173611, Antonio Dela Cruz and Leonardo Ocampo. Secondly, although plaintiff Ocampo is not an agent of Antonio Dela Cruz, the latter filed before the court a Special Power of Attorney dated 09 May 2001 naming, constituting and appointing the former as his attorney-in-fact.
Respondent avers that since the complainant did not contest the subject Special Power of Attorney during the hearing, the court considered the same in rendering its decision. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, affirmed the decision of respondent, hence showing the correctness of his decision.
Respondent asserts that he did not violate any provision of the Rules of Court nor any settled jurisprudence. He should not be disciplined for he never violated any provision on Professional Responsibility. He asserts further that his decision was based on law and jurisprudence and hence this baseless accusation of complainant should be dismissed.
EVALUATION: After careful study of the evidence presented
by the complainant against the respondent, we are inclined to believe that the instance
case lacks proper basis and therefore devoid of merit. The complainant failed to prove his
allegations of manifest bias and partiality. It has been held that, "bias and partiality can never be presumed. Bare allegations of partiality will not
suffice in the absence of clear and convincing proof that will overcome the
presumption that the judge dispensed justice according to law and evidence
without fear or favor." (Spouses Florencio
& Esther Causin vs. Leonardo N. Demecillo etc., A.M. No.
RTJ-04-1860,
As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability, civil, criminal, or administrative, for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. To hold otherwise would be to 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.
Complainant in this case instead of filing this administrative complaint
could have availed of other judicial remedies still available. Time and again, the Court ruled that "
the
filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not an appropriate
remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in
rendering the assailed decision or order as in the case at bar, the remedy of
the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court
for review and correction.
" (Ma.
Fernandez vs. Court of
Appeals Associate Justice Eubolo G. Verzola, et al., A.M. No. CA-04-40,
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 therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Gregorio B. Cleme�a, Jr. is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA
ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
