ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-2452-RTJ. September 11, 2006]
ALFONSO CHUA v. JUDGE DANILO S. CRUZ
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 11, 2006 .
A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-2452-RTJ (Alfonso Chua v. Judge Danilo S. Cruz)
This treats of the Verified Complaint with Comment dated January 23, 2006 filed by Alfonso Chua (Chua), charging respondent Judge Danilo S. Cruz (respondent judge) with bias and partiality and undue delay in the execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 6327 entitled Feliza Esguerra, et al. v. Antipaz Pineda, et al. for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land.
In a letter dated December 9, 2005, Chua initially sought the assistance of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for the expeditious execution of the decision in the said civil case. He also requested that an administrative investigation be conducted on the alleged undue delay in the implementation of the alias writ of execution issued in the case.
Chua alleged that the writ of execution issued in the case on August 27, 1990 was only partially executed because of the refusal of the spouses Julio and Milipina Rios (spouses Rios) to vacate the subject premises. Upon plaintiffs' motion, respondent judge ordered the issuance of an alias writ of execution. The spouses Rios filed a motion to recall/clarify the alias writ of execution but the motion was denied by respondent judge who instead issued a special order of writ of demolition due to the continued refusal of the spouses Rios to vacate the premises. The spouses Rios then filed a motion to recall the orders of respondent judge but again, the same was denied. Finally, the spouses Rios filed a motion for the inhibition of respondent judge which the latter granted on June 1, 2005.
As a consequence of respondent judge's inhibition, the case was re-raffled to Branch 262 presided over by Judge Isagani A. Geronimo (Judge Geronimo). However, on July 5, 2005, Judge Geronimo unloaded and remanded the case to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle pursuant to A.M. No. 02-11-17-SC.
Acting on Chua's letter, the OCA referred the matter to the Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
In his verified complaint, Chua claims that no administrative investigation on the undue delay in the execution of the decision in the civil case was conducted. He maintains that the delay in the execution of the decision was caused by respondent judge's inhibition from the case.
Respondent judge filed a Comment dated April 1, 2006, averring that he cannot be faulted for the delay in the execution of the decision in the civil case because his inhibition was an exercise of judicial discretion. Respondent judge points out that all the incidents in the case were resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.
The OCA recommends the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. According to the OCA, the inhibition of respondent judge was not unjustified. It was done out of delicadeza upon his honest belief that the defendants in the civil case have lost trust and confidence in him. The OCA notes that respondent judge immediately transmitted the records of the case to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle, indicating that he has no intention to delay the proceedings in the case.
We are fully in accord with the OCA's recommendation.
The question of whether to inhibit is best left to the sound discretion and the conscience of the judge based on his rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought before him. [1] cralaw
There is no indication in this case that respondent judge's inhibition was motivated by bad faith, malice or a desire to favor a particular party. We note that respondent judge promptly disposed of the motions filed by both parties and immediately transmitted the records of the case to the clerk of court for re-raffle upon his inhibition. These circumstances convince us that respondent judge did not act with any bias and partiality, much less cause the delay in the execution of the decision in the civil case.
WHEREFORE, the Verified Complaint with Comment dated January 23, 2006 is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Hilario v. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-991454, March 2, 2000.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
