ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2029-RTJ. October 16, 2006]

CARLOS R. CRUZ, JR. v. JUDGE MANUEL R. TARO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 42, QUEZON CITY

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 16, 2006 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2029-RTJ (Carlos R. Cruz, Jr. v. Judge Manuel R. Taro, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 42, Quezon City)

The instant administrative matter stemmed from the Complaint-Affidavit [1] cralaw filed by Carlos R. Cruz, Jr., dated June 3, 2004, charging Judge Ofelia A. Marquez with grave misconduct; Judges Leah D. Regala and Manuel R. Taro with grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law; and Branch Clerk Gildo Gorospe with manifest partiality relative to several cases pending before the salas of the said judges in which complainant is a party.

In a Resolution [2] cralaw dated October 12, 2005, the Court dismissed the charges against Judges Marquez and Regala, and Clerk of Court Gorospe. The complaint against Judge Taro, however, was referred to Executive Judge Natividad A. Giron-Dizon, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, for investigation, report and recommendation.

During the investigation set on December 15, 2005, only respondent Judge Taro appeared and submitted a copy of his Comment dated August 23, 2004. The investigation was reset to January 11, 2006, and respondent Judge filed his Supplemental Position Paper. On January 12, 2006, complainant was given ten days to file his position paper and reply to respondent's supplemental paper. After complainant submitted his position paper on February 7, 2006, respondent submitted his Reply thereto dated February 14, 2006. Both parties thereafter manifested that they no longer intended to present additional evidence.

In her Report and Recommendation dated March 15, 2006, the Executive Judge made the following observation:

x x x Respondent Judge convincingly explained the action he has taken in Criminal Case No. 89550 because accused Juana Coronel has been evading her arraignment for more than five (5) years by filing numerous dilatory motions. Complainant Cruz is not a party to the said case and was not affected by the action taken by the respondent judge.

Respondent Judge denied having "flew into a rage" towards Atty. Hope Valenzuela, counsel for accused Juana Coronel and in support thereof, he attached affidavits to the effect that no untoward incident took place during the hearing that showed disrespect to Atty. Valenzuela. Assuming arguendo that there was alleged disrespect to Atty. Valenzuela, it would be the latter who would act on it and should complain about the alleged behavior of respondent judge and not herein complainant x x x. Such alleged incident during the hearing was not substantiated by the complainant. x x x

Respondent Judge also satisfactorily explained the delay in the case of Ferdinand Cruz (Criminal Case No. 81625). Since this case is already at the trial stage, it was set for seven months interval because of his heavy case load (4,055 cases) and it can only accommodate four to six cases for every date of hearing. Besides, respondent Judge has already inhibited in this case upon complainant's motion. Whereas, in the case of Juana Coronel, her arraignment was set earlier with interval of two months because his court can set at least fifty cases for arraignment, which can only take five to ten minutes for an accused to be arraigned.

As regards Criminal Cases Nos. 87354-57, respondent Judge maintains that he was correct in dismissing the said cases. x x x

Respondent Judge dismissed the said cases on October 2, 2002 because similar cases of perjury were filed against the accused in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, x x x Malolos, Bulacan and x x x Tarlac City and x x x Quezon City, which facts were admitted by the prosecution. On complainant's appeal, Judge Lydia Q. Layosa, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City, rendered a Decision dated June 23, 2003, reversing and setting aside the respondent Judge's Order of Dismissal. However, on petition for review by the accused, the 8th Division of the Court of Appeals, in its Decision promulgated on January 28, 2005, granted the petition and reversed and set aside the Decision dated June 23, 2003 of RTC-Branch 217, Quezon City and reinstated the respondent Judge's Order of Dismissal dated October 2, 2002.

Thus, Executive Judge Giron-Dizon recommended that the administrative matter against respondent Judge Taro be dismissed.

In a Resolution dated June 28, 2006, the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation, whose findings are as follows:

Complainant has no legal personality to include in his complaint the alleged partiality of respondent Judge towards Francisco Cruz considering that he is not a party to Criminal Case No. 89550. Further, this accusation is refuted by respondent's documentary evidence which disclose that accused Juana Coronel through counsel filed dilatory motions to defer her arraignment on June 4, 1998, April 21, 1999, March 20, 2000, June 19, 2000, August 25, 2000, September 13, 2000, April 16, 2002 and January 23, 2003. Accused was arraigned on July 23, 2003, after more than five (5) years from the time the case was filed in court in April 17, 1988. Accused Juana Coronel likewise filed several motions for inhibitions of judges handling the case. Upon motions of Juana Coronel, Judge Joselito Generoso, MeTC, Br. 34 and Judge Cesar Untalan, MeTC, Br. 39 inhibited themselves from hearing the case. On June 5, 2002, the case was re-raffled to MeTC, Br. 42 presided by respondent Judge Taro who inhibited himself on April 11, 2003. Finally, the case was re-raffled to MeTC, Br. 40 under Judge Fernando Sagun who issued an order that "no resetting of the scheduled arraignment on July 23, 2003 shall be entertained by the court." Juana Coronel, however, filed a motion to quash which the court denied. Apparently, respondent Judge Taro could not be faulted for issuing the March 14, 2003 order, denying Juana Coronel's motion to lift the warrant of arrest, setting the arraignment and pre-trial on May 21, 2003. It must also be stressed that it was Judge Cesar Untalan who first issued the warrant of arrest on September 13, 2003 for the accused's obstinate refusal to be arraigned.

The Court cannot give credence to complainant's contention that respondent showed disrespect to Atty. Valenzuela for lack of evidence. In fact, the alleged victim did not initiate any complaint against respondent.

There is no truth to the allegation that respondent intentionally delayed the hearing of Criminal Case No. 81625 to favor accused Ferdinand Cruz. Due to heavy caseload of MeTC, Br. 42, it can only accommodate four to six cases for the reception of the parties' evidence. This case is already at the trial stage while Criminal Case No. 89550, at the time the instant case was filed, was scheduled for arraignment. Verily, there is no point of comparison between the said two cases.

Respondent is not liable for gross ignorance of the law when he issued the October 2, 2002 order dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. 87354-57. The June 23, 2003 order of RTC, Br. 217 reversing respondent's order of dismissal was set aside by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated January 28, 2005. Respondent's order of dismissal was reinstated.

In view thereof, this Office respectfully recommends that the instant case against respondent Judge Manuel R. Taro be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court agrees with the foregoing recommendation.

It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Bare allegations, surmises, suspicions and rhetorics will not suffice, as competent evidence must be presented to prove the charges. [3] cralaw Thus, charges based on mere suspicion and speculations cannot be given credence [4] cralaw and shall forthwith be dismissed.

Moreover, as a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, [5] cralaw for 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. [6] cralaw The filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the assailed decision or order, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. [7] cralaw In this case, as noted by the OCA, the respondent Judge's order dismissing Criminal Case Nos. 87354-57, which the RTC, Branch 127 reversed in its June 23, 2003 Order, was reinstated by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated January 28, 2005. In fine, there is no ground to hold respondent Judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.

The Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against Judge Manuel R. Taro for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-25.

[2] cralaw Id. at 279-282.

[3] cralaw Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Legaspi, 453 Phil. 459, 464 (2003).

[4] cralaw Cortes v. Chico-Nazario, A.M. No. SB-04-11-J, February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA 541, 550, citing Lambino v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 42 (1997).

[5] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o, 321 Phil. 174 (1995).

[6] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 448 Phil. 37, 42 (2003).

[7] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 377, 382.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com