EN BANC
SEVERO
A. CORDERO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
CA-04-36
February 18, 2004
-versus-
JUSTICE
JUAN Q.
ENRIQUEZ, COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
In an Affidavit-Complaint[1]
dated September 11, 2000, complainant Severo A. Cordero charged then
Presiding
Judge Juan Q. Enriquez[2]
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 92, with gross
ignorance
of the law, gross incompetence and partiality to a party litigant.cralaw:red
In the aforesaid complaint,
complainant averred that he was the plaintiff in Civil Case No.
Q-98-35160
entitled, “Severo A. Cordero, Plaintiff versus Gilbert A. Villota,
Defendant,”
for breach of contract and damages with preliminary attachment filed
with
respondent’s court. It appears that plaintiff extended to
defendant
a loan in the amount of P180,000.00, secured by a Chattel Mortgage on
defendant’s
taxi-cab. However, defendant failed to surrender to plaintiff the
certificate of registration and official receipt of registration of the
vehicle. Meanwhile, it was agreed that defendant shall continue
to
operate the vehicle as a taxi-cab and remit to plaintiff the daily
earnings
therefrom as payment for the loan. Defendant breached his
obligation,
which compelled plaintiff to file the said complaint.cralaw:red
After trial, respondent
rendered judgment on September 15, 1999, to wit:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
The Writ of
Preliminary
Attachment is hereby ordered recalled and the vehicle subject of this
case
be delivered immediately to the defendant;
Ordering the
defendant
to deliver the original Certificate of Registration and Official
Receipt
of the subject vehicle to the plaintiff.chanrobles virtual law library
Ordering the
defendant
to pay the P400.00 (four hundred pesos) daily earnings to the plaintiff
from the time the subject vehicle is actually delivered to him except
on
color coding days, holidays and Sundays.
Ordering both
parties
to religiously comply with the written terms of the Deed of Chattel
Mortgage
up to March 19, 2001.
SO ORDERED.
Complainant filed a
Motion
for Reconderation, which was denied on December 28, 1999.[3]
A notice of appeal was filed on January 11, 2000, which was approved on
January 12, 2000.[4]
Two days after the grant of the notice of appeal, respondent judge set
the notice of appeal for hearing.
Gilbert Villota, the
defendant in Civil Case No. Q-98-35160, filed a motion to discharge
attachment
which was denied on June 6, 2000,[5]
on the ground that respondent judge had already lost jurisdiction over
the case upon the perfection of the plaintiff’s appeal and the
expiration
of time for the defendant to appeal.cralaw:red
On June 2, 2000, complainant
filed a motion[6]
to sell at public auction the attached taxi-cab of the defendant
Gilbert
Villota and to deposit the proceeds of the sale with the court pending
the final resolution of Civil Case No. Q-98-35160. The motion was
denied.chanrobles virtual law library
A Motion for Reconsideration[7]
was filed by complainant which was set for hearing on July 14,
2000.
However, the hearing was reset on August 25, 2000,[8]
because respondent was not available. Complainant learned later
on
that respondent judge has been appointed Associate Justice of the Court
of Appeals.cralaw:red
Complainant Severo A.
Cordero charges respondent judge with the following:
13.1 – He
refused
to award damages to me despite the fact that material and relevant
evidence
was presented in support of the same;
13.2 – While the
period
for the payment of the principal obligation appearing in the chattel
mortgage,
subject of the case, is fixed in February 2000, Judge Enriquez
unlawfully
stretched the same to March 19, 2001.
13.3 – He still
entertained
the defendant’s “Motion to Discharge Attachment” despite the clear
provision
of the rules that he has no more jurisdiction to act on the same. It
was
only due to my timely and vigorous objection that said motion was
denied;
13.4 – He had
already
approved the Notice of Appeal and ordered the forwarding of the records
of the case to the Court of Appeals on January 12, 2000, and yet he
countermanded
that for no valid reason by setting the Notice of Appeal for hearing;
and,
13.5 – He refused
to
act on my “Motion” to sell the attached taxi cab although the same was
properly set for hearing and the same is meritorious and allowed under
the rules of court. And neither did he cause the immediate forwarding
of
the records to the Court of Appeals. Thus maliciously stalling the
proceedings.[9]chanrobles virtual law library
In his comment,
respondent
judge averred that he did not award damages to the complainant in Civil
Case No. Q-98-35160 because neither party in the said case was entitled
to such award. Since both parties were in default and in pari
delicto,
each one bears the respective damages sustained; that he extended the
original
period for the payment of the principal obligation on grounds of
justice
and equity; that since the parties agreed that the payment of the
principal
obligation shall come from the proceeds of the taxi operation, it was
only
proper that the period during which the vehicle was under attachment
should
be excluded from the period agreed upon by the parties; that his denial
of the motion to discharge attachment was due to loss of jurisdiction
over
the case after complainant interposed an appeal; that he and his court
interpreter erred when they set the notice of appeal for hearing and
when
they discovered the error, they recalled the copies of the Order; that
he was not able to act on the motion for reconsideration/clarification
of the Order dated June 23, 2000 because on the date set for hearing of
the motion, he went to the office of the Judicial and Bar Council; that
on August 25, 2000, he had been appointed Associate Justice of the
Court
of Appeals; and that he was not able to elevate immediately the records
of the case to the Court of Appeals because of the pendency of
complainant’s
motion for reconsideration/clarification.
On August 19, 2003,
the Court assigned the case to retired Associate Justice Bernardo P.
Pardo
for investigation, report and recommendation.cralaw:red
On December 1, 2003,
complainant’s counsel submitted to the Investigating Justice a sworn
statement
of the complainant stating that he was withdrawing the complaint
against
respondent Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. for the reason: “dahil ito ay
isa lang malaking abala at higit sa lahat matanda na ako at mahina na
hindi
ko na kaya ang pagpunta-punta sa husgado; wala na akong interes na
ipagpatuloy
pa ang aking reclamo laban kay Justice Juan Q. Enriquez at hindi na ako
dadalo sa mga hearing.”
On January 13, 2004,
Justice Pardo submitted his Report wherein he recommended the dismissal
of the charges against respondent.cralaw:red
After a careful review
of the evidence on record, we find the recommendation to be well-taken.cralaw:red
The records disclose
that the filing of the administrative charges against herein respondent
justice was premature. Complainant admitted that he interposed an
appeal from the decision of respondent judge and that the case is now
pending
before the Court of Appeals.[10]
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 or an appeal.[11]
Disciplinary proceedings
and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory
of, nor a substitute for, judicial remedies. Resort to and exhaustion
of
these remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding
action
or proceeding, are prerequisites for the taking of other measures
against
the persons of the judges concerned, whether civil, administrative, or
criminal in nature.cralaw:red
The charge of gross
ignorance of the law against respondent is devoid of any factual or
legal
basis. Respondent’s decision not to grant complainant damages was
based on his findings that both parties were in default and considered
in pari delicto; thus neither is entitled to damages. As to the period
of payment of the principal obligation, respondent extended the same
because
based on the parties’ agreement, payment of the loan shall come from
the
proceeds of the taxi operation. Justice and equity dictates that the
time
when the taxi was not in operation, being under attachment, should be
deducted
from the period originally agreed upon by the parties. As to the motion
to discharge attachment, it was his duty to rule upon the motions filed
before him.[12]chanrobles virtual law library
We likewise find no
basis on the charge of gross incompetence. No evidence was
presented
to show that respondent judge failed to consider a basic and elemental
rule, law or principle in the discharge of his duties. It is an
established
rule in administrative cases that complainant bears the onus of
establishing
or proving the averments in his complaint by substantial evidence.[13]
Respondent’s error in setting the notice of appeal for hearing was not
borne out of ignorance of the basic rule on procedure. Notably,
as
soon as the respondent judge realized his mistake, he directed his
court
interpreter to recall the copies of the erroneous order from the party
litigants and to remove them from the case records.cralaw:red
Finally, the charge
of partiality to a party litigant, because of the refusal of respondent
to act on the complainant’s motion to sell the attached taxi unit, is
likewise
without merit. Respondent correctly refrained from further acting
on the case in view of complainant’s having perfected an appeal.
The court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the
appeal.[14]
Moreover, at the time of the scheduled hearing of complainant’s motion,
respondent has been appointed as an Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals.chanrobles virtual law library
Well settled is the
rule unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption,
malice or ill-will, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice,
the respondent judge may not be held administratively liable for gross
misconduct, ignorance of the law or incompetence of official acts or
acts
in the exercise of judicial functions and duties, particularly in the
adjudication
of cases.[15]
Further, to hold a judge administratively accountable for every
erroneous
rule or decision he renders would be nothing short of harassment and
would
make his position doubly unbearable. 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 the administration of justice can be
infallible
in his judgment.[16]
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, the instant administrative complaint against
respondent
Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez is DISMISSED for lack of merit.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-5.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Justice Enriquez was appointed to the Court of Appeals on August 16,
2000.
He assumed office as a Justice of the Court of Appeals on August 21,
2000.
[3]
Id., at 16.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id., at 17.
[5]
Id., at 22-22.
[6]
Id., at 23-24.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Id., at 26-29. The motion was dated July 11, 2000 and it was received
by
the office of respondent on July 12, 2000.
[8]
Id., at 30. A constancia signed by the Branch Clerk of Court of the
Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 92, re-setting the hearing of herein
complainant’s motion on August 25, 2000.
[9]
Id., at 5.
[10]
Report and Recommendation, supra at 11.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Abraham L. Mendova v. Crisanto B. Afable, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1402, 4
December
2002.
[12]
Tolentino v. Malanyaon, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1444, 3 August 2000, 337 SCRA
162.
[13]
Fr. Michael Sinnot, et al. v. Judge Recaredo P. Barte, A.M. No.
RTJ-99-1453,
14 December 2001, 372 SCRA 282.
[14]
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41, Section 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Dr. Isagani Cruz v. Judge Philbert I. Itturalde, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1775,
30 April 2003; Relova v. Judge Rosales, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1711, 26
November
2002; Canson v. Justice Garchitorena, 370 Phil. 287 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Guillermo v. Reyes, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-1088, 18 January 1995, 240
SCRA
154. |