ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-1852-MTJ. October 23, 2006]
PHILIP TURNER v.
JUDGE ROWENA DE JUAN-QUINAGORAN, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61,
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 23, 2006 .
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-1852-MTJ (Philip
Turner v. Judge Rowena de Juan-Quinagoran, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 61,
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator dated September 18, 2006, to wit:
REASON FOR AGENDA:
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received the July 18, 2006 verified
complaint charging Judge Rowena de Juan-Quinagoran with violation of the Rules on
Summary Procedure, manifest bias and partiality relative to Civil Case No.
87471, entitled "Philip Turner v.
Complainant alleges that Judge Quinagoran has "committed four very serious violations of the Rules on Summary Procedure, showing utter disregard of the said rules, manifest bias and partiality in favor of China Trust. Firstly, respondent admitted the markings of China Trust even though the same were improperly and illegally marked, without giving the complainant the opportunity to examine the original copies of the exhibits and compare them with the supposed xerox copies thereof. Secondly, respondent admitted the Position Paper of China Trust despite the fact that it was filed out of time, in effect granting a prohibited Motion for Extension of Time. Thirdly, respondent admitted the Position Paper which is not verified in violation of the fundamental Rules on Summary Procedure, that all pleadings must be verified. Lastly, respondent decided the case only on January 15, 2006, more than two months late" from due date (Complaint dated July 18, 2006, pp. 4-5, par. 13).
In utter disregard of the Rules and despite complainant's opposition, respondent issued an order dated December 2, 2005 denying complainant's motion to cancel the marking of exhibits of the defendant, admitting the defendant's position paper with supporting affidavits, and disregarding defendant's motion for extension of time to file position paper (Ibid, p. 4, par 12).
In her Comment dated August 3, 2006, Judge Quinagoran contends that her December 2, 2005 order is in accordance with law and jurisprudence. In fact, she claims that complainant did not file a motion for reconsideration questioning the said order. She clarifies that she has nothing to do with the marking of the exhibits as it was Branch Clerk of Court Norma Burce who received and marked the defendant's exhibits (Affidavit of Norma Burce dated August 4, 2006 attached to Judge Quinagoran[s] Comment and marked as Annex "8"). Moreover, the defendant has submitted the original copies of its documentary evidence.
Anent the issue on the lack of verification and belated filing of the position paper by the defendant, respondent maintains that the position paper was not filed out of time. The twenty (20)-day period requested by the parties within which to file their position paper did not start to run until the incident on the comparison of the parties' documentary evidence was resolved. Defendant need not file a motion for extension of time to file its position paper because the same was filed within the reglementary period considering that the position paper became due only when and after the issue on admission of the parties' documentary exhibits were finally settled. The parties cannot finalize their respective position papers without the exhibits which should be properly marked for easy reference and identification.
Respondent asserts that the verification requirement under the Rules on Summary Procedure is formal and jurisdictional.
Regarding her alleged delay in rendering the decision in the subject case, respondent contends that Section 10 of the Rules on Summary Procedure provides that the court may decide the case after thirty (30) days from receipt of the last pleading. She avers that complainant filed a comment to the defendant's position paper on January 6, 2006 and the receipt of the said comment in effect extended the due date in deciding the case. The court may decide the case on or before February 6, 2006. The subject case was decided on January 15, 2006 (Annex "14").
On January 7, 2006, complainant filed a notice of appeal (Annex "15) on the said decision. On the same day, the records of the case were elevated to the RTC of Makati City (Annex "16"). The said appeal is not submitted for decision. Respondent is in quandary why it took complainant six (6) months from receipt of the decision to file this instant administrative complaint.
EVALUATION: Complainant failed to substantiate his accusation against respondent. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rest on the complainant. Failing in this, the complaint must be dismissed.
The assailed December 2, 2005 order became final for complainant's failure to file a motion for the reconsideration of the said order. Further, respondent has rendered a decision which was appealed by the complainant to the RTC.
It is established doctrine and policy of the Court that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with bad faith, fraud, malice or dishonesty. Disciplinary proceedings are not complementary or suppletory to, nor substitute for judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. For obviously, if subsequent developments prove the judge's challenged act to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against her at all (Spouses Arturo and Josefina de Guzman vs. Judge Fernando Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1736, June 26, 2003).
In view whereof, it is recommended that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
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. [1] cralaw A judge who has acted in good faith cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative - for any official act, no matter how erroneous. In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to the aggrieved parties and the same has not yet been resolved with finality. Until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether the respondent judge is administratively liable. [2] cralaw
Thus, the settled rule is that if the complainant fails to prove the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed the duties attendant to the office will prevail. [3] cralaw The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. [4] cralaw
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the Court resolves to DISMISS the complaint against Judge Rowena de Juan-Quinagoran for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-955, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 174, 194.
[2] cralaw Quinto v. Vios, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1551, May 21, 2004, 429 SCRA 1, 7.
[3] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Legaspi, 453 Phil. 459, 464 (2003).
[4] cralaw See Abdula v. Guiani, 382 Phil. 757, 769 (2000).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
