ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-100-CA-J. September 5, 2006]

JOSE C. DIAZ v. FORMER SEVENTH DIVISION JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 5, 2006

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-100-CA-J (Jose C. Diaz v. Former Seventh Division Justices of the Court of Appeals)

This is an offshoot of the administrative case for "Bias and Evident Partiality for Defendants-Appellants in CA-G.R. CV No. 79136" filed by Jose C. Diaz assisted by his brother Jesus against Associate Justices Portia Ali�o-Hormachuelos, Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Aurora Santiago-Lagman, as members of the former Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals (CA).

As a backgrounder, Jose C. Diaz filed an action for sum of money before the RTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214 against his brother Juan Diaz alleging that Juan should give him his share in the sale of the house and lot in Greenhills, Metro Manila as a co-owner of said property because the proceeds of the sale of their inherited Mandaluyong property was used in buying the Greenhills property. The RTC ruled that Jose failed to prove the existence of co-ownership between him and Juan but the latter was ordered to pay P7,000.00 representing the balance of Jose's share in the sale of their house and lot in Mandaluyong City and moral damages. On appeal, the CA through the respondents Justices, held that while the RTC was correct in ruling that there was no co-ownership between Jose and Juan, it is not correct to order Juan to pay P7,000.00. The evidence adduced show that Juan already gave Jose the amount "little by little" upon advise of their mother. Moreover, Jose is barred by laches and prescription. The CA thus reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. The Motion and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Jose did not elevate the case to this Court for review. Thus, the CA Decision became final and executory. Accordingly, the decision was entered in the Book of Judgment. Jose then filed this administrative case against respondents.

In a Resolution dated May 3, 2006, the Court upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator dismissed this administrative complaint against the respondents on the ground that:

If a party is prejudiced by the orders of a judge, his remedy lies with the proper court for the proper judicial action and not with the Office of the Court Administrator by means of an administrative complaint. Complainant should have filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court. Furthermore, a judge's failure to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable. The acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action.

However, Jose was directed to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of court for filing such frivolous and unmeritorious complaint.

In his Comment dated May 28, 2006, Jose simply stated:

A reading of my administrative complaint shows that there were good and valid reasons for me to believe that there was bias for defendant spouses in the case

The explanation of Jose C. Diaz is not satisfactory.

As aforestated, it is very clear that the CA Decision against Jose had already attained finality. In the said Decision, the respondents point to the fact that there is no evidence, whether documentary or testimonial to show that the Mandaluyong property was purposely sold in order to buy the Greenhills property. The title issued for the Greenhills property does not show that Jose is one of the co-owners. While in the title of the Mandaluyong property, the proportionate shares of the co-owners were stated clearly, the respondents found it improbable that Jose would agree to the title being issued without his name as co-owner if he really was one. Indubitably, the CA Decision was based on the respondents' appreciation of evidence. Assuming en arguendo that respondents erred in the appreciation of evidence or even in the interpretation of the law, the same can be corrected by an appeal for a review of the said Decision. Jose's allegations in his administrative complaint zero-in on the merits of the case, i.e. the issue on whether or not co-ownership exists, which would have been proper subject of an appeal which Jose failed to file.

In fine, Jose utterly failed to show any basis for the alleged bias or partiality exercised by respondents.

With the filing of this administrative case, the respondents' valuable time not to mention the resources of the Court had been unnecessarily wasted which could had been used for more important matters.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, Jose C. Diaz is found guilty of contempt of court and is ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000.00, within 10 days from notice hereof.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE