EN BANC
FRANCISCO
GALMAN
CRUZ,
Appellee,
A.M.
No.
CA-04-38
March 31, 2004
-versus-
JUSTICE
PORTIA
ALIÑO-HORMACHUELOS,JUDGE VICTORIA
FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO,JUDGE CAESAR A.
CASANOVA,JUDGE RENATO C.
FRANCISCO,JUDGE MANUEL D.
J. SYCIANGCOAND JUDGE ESTER
R. CHUA-YU,
Appellants. |
R E S O L U T I O
N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
.
In a Verified Complaint-Affidavit
dated September 29, 2002, Francisco Galman Cruz charged Court of
Appeals
Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos of the Court of Appeals, four
(4) presiding Judges of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos,
Bulacan,
namely: Judge Victoria Fernandez-Bernardo (Branch 18), Judge Caesar A.
Casanova (Branch 80), Judge Renato C. Francisco (Branch 19) and Judge
Manuel
D. J. Syciangco (Branch 6); and Judge Ester R. Chua-Yu of the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of Bulacan, Bulacan (Branch 1) with Grave Misconduct
and Gross Ignorance of the Law.chanrobles virtual law library
It appears that complainant
was the defendant in Civil Case No. 94-98 for ejectment before the MTC
of Malolos, Bulacan involving a parcel of land owned by the Province of
Bulacan.[1]
The complaint was filed by the then “provincial attorney”, now
respondent
RTC Judge Syciangco, under a special power of attorney executed by then
Governor Roberto Pagdanganan in favor of the Provincial General
Services
Officer, Engr. Romeo S. Castro.[2]
Initially, the case was assigned to Branch 2 but when the presiding
judge
of said court was transferred to another court, respondent, then MTC,
Judge
Syciangco was appointed in his stead. Respondent Judge Syciangco
immediately
recused himself because he was the former counsel for the plaintiff.
Civil
Case No. 94-98 was then assigned to Branch 1, presided by Judge Mario
Capellan
who also inhibited himself on motion of the complainant. In view
thereof,
Executive Judge Natividad Dizon of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan,
designated
respondent Judge Chua-Yu of the MTC of Bulacan, Bulacan, to try and
decide
said ejectment case.[3]
On September 5, 1997, respondent Judge Chua-Yu rendered judgment
ordering
the ejectment of complainant.[4]
Complainant filed an
appeal with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as RTC Case No.
884-M-97.
The case was assigned to Branch 80 presided by respondent Judge
Casanova.
On March 3, 1999, respondent Judge Casanova affirmed the decision
rendered
by respondent Judge Chua-Yu.[5]
Dissatisfied, complainant
filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, docketed as
CA-G.R.
SP No. 52309.[6]
On February 28, 2000, respondent Justice Portia
Aliño-Hormachuelos,
as ponente affirmed the judgment of the lower court.[7]
Undaunted, complainant
further appealed to this Court but the same was dismissed for having
been
filed out of time.cralaw:red
On October 15, 2001,
complainant filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the RTC of
Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. 689-M-2001.[8]
The case was raffled to Branch 19 presided by respondent Judge
Francisco.
On October 22, 2001, respondent Judge Francisco denied the prayer for
temporary
restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction.[9]
On October 29, 2001,
complainant filed a motion for inhibition of respondent Judge Francisco.[10]
He also filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the prayer
for TRO. On November 5, 2001, respondent Judge Francisco voluntarily
inhibited
himself from the case. The case was transferred to Branch 18 presided
by
respondent Judge Fernandez-Bernardo. On January 3, 2002, respondent
Judge
Fernandez-Bernardo denied the motion for reconsideration.[11]
On September 10, 2002, complainant filed a motion for voluntary
inhibition
of respondent Judge Fernandez-Bernardo. On October 1, 2002, respondent
Judge Fernandez-Bernardo denied the motion for inhibition.[12]chanrobles virtual law library
On September 30, 2002,
complainant filed the complaint-affidavit against the above-named
respondents[13]
with the following allegations:
Respondent Judge Syciangco,
as the then “Provincial Attorney”, acted in connivance with then
Governor
Pagdanganan in filing the complaint for ejectment which did not have
the
sanction of the Provincial Board. Respondent Judge Chua-Yu tried and
decided
the ejectment case although she did not have jurisdiction considering
she
was a not a judge of Malolos, Bulacan where the property was located.
Respondent
Judge Casanova affirmed the judgment of respondent Judge Chua-Yu.
Respondent
Justice Aliño-Hormachuelos affirmed the judgment of respondent
Judge
Casanova. Respondent Judge Francisco refused to grant a temporary
restraining
order (TRO). Respondent Judge Fernandez-Bernardo refused to issue a TRO
based on his motion for reconsideration. All the respondents committed
“misconduct and corruption, inefficient (sic) and gross inexcusable
negligence;
and simple violation of law on jurisdiction and fraud on administrative
law; and knowingly rendering unjust judgment – void judgment.”[14]
Required to comment,
each of the respondents filed separate comments denying the allegations
leveled against them. Respondent Judge Syciangco alleges that he is
being
charged for acts he performed when he was the Provincial Legal Officer
of Bulacan. The other respondents aver that they acted in accordance
with
law and jurisprudence in deciding the case before them. All the
respondents
submit that the complaint is baseless and complainant should be
sanctioned
for filing an unfounded complain which robbed respondents of precious
time
which could otherwise have been devoted to the cases in court.chanrobles virtual law library
In its Evaluation Report
dated January 29, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
recommended
the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit inasmuch as
complainant
questions the correctness of the decisions or orders issued by
respondents
which is not within the province of an administrative case. The OCA
further
recommended that complainant be required to show cause why he should
not
be held in contempt of court.[15]
Approving the recommendation
of the OCA, the Court, in a Resolution dated February 24, 2003,
dismissed
the complaint for lack of merit and required complainant to show cause
why he should not be held in contempt of court.[16]chanrobles virtual law library
On March 21, 2003, complainant
filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the complaint.[17]
The Court denied the same in a Resolution dated July 8, 2003 and
reiterated
the Resolution dated February 24, 2003 requiring complainant to show
cause
why he should not be held in contempt of court.[18]
On August 4, 2003, complainant
filed his compliance. He strongly reiterates that, with all honesty and
belief, his complaint contains “full of proof of pieces of evidentiary
facts” that would show a prima facie case against respondents which the
Court should investigate. Complainant points out that it was former
Governor
Roberto Pagdanganan who ordered the filing of ejectment case against
him
in the sala of Judge Syciangco who used to be the Legal Counsel of the
Province of Bulacan. Complainant submits that this fact proves
connivance,
fraud and deception between Governor Pagdanganan and the judges of
Bulacan
which he made as one of his basis in filing the administrative case.[19]
In his Memorandum Report
dated February 12, 2004, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
recommends that complainant be cited for contempt of court for filing
an
unfounded or baseless complaint. He opines:
Complainant’s
explanation is lacking in substance, and his theory of conspiracy is
based
on mere suspicion and speculation. The connection which complainant
seeks
to establish from the order to file ejectment case against him and the
decision reached in said case is tenuous, and that the conclusion he
seeks
to draw that there was conspiracy is without any basis.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Unfounded
accusations
or allegations or words tending to obstruct, embarrass or influence the
court in administering justice or to bring it into disrepute have no
place
in a pleading. Their employment serves no useful purpose and on the
contrary
constitutes direct contempt of court or contempt in facie curiae and a
violation of the lawyer’s oath and a transgression of the canons of
professional
ethics, for which a lawyer like complainant may be administratively
disciplined.
It is, therefore,
appropriate
to enjoin herein complainant and other members of the bar who file
administrative
complaints against members of the bench that they should do so after
proper
circumspection so as not to unduly burden the Court in the discharge of
its function of administrative supervision over judges and court
personnel.chanrobles virtual law library
The Court has
meted
the corresponding disciplinary measures against erring judges,
including
dismissal and suspension where warranted, and welcomes the honest
efforts
of the Bar to assist it in the task. But lawyers like complainant
should
also bear in mind that they owe fidelity to courts as well as to their
clients and that the filing of unfounded or frivolous charges against
judges
such as the one at hand as a means of harassing them whose decisions
have
not been to their liking will subject them to appropriate disciplinary
action as officers of the court.
The Court finds the
recommendation
of the Court Administrator to be well taken.
The Court has consistently
held that judges will not be held administratively liable for mere
errors
of judgment in their rulings or decisions absent a showing of malice or
gross ignorance on their part. Bad faith or malice cannot be inferred
simply
because the judgment is adverse to a party. To hold a judge
administratively
accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming
that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make
his position unbearable.[20]
Much less can a judge be so held accountable where to all indications,
as in this case, the judgment complained of is far from erroneous. The
judgment in the ejectment case has gone through all the levels of
review,
it is high time that any doubts on the validity of the decision be laid
to rest.cralaw:red
Furthermore, there is
no cogent reason to delve into the allegations of connivance, fraud and
deception between Governor Pagdanganan and the judges of Bulacan as
they
are not sustained by an iota of evidence but are only based on the
unfounded
perception of complainant. Familiarity between Governor Pagdanganan and
the judges of Bulacan is insufficient proof, as connivance or
conspiracy
transcends companionship. This Court can not give credence to charges
based
on mere suspicion or speculation.[21]
It is well settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant
has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in
his
complaint.[22]
In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the
presumption
that the respondents have regularly performed their official duties,[23]
as in this case.chanrobles virtual law library
A thorough review of
the record also reveals that complainant has the penchant for calling
for
the inhibition of judges when he perceives the judge is partial or when
he receives an unfavorable order or decision from a judge. In fact, the
ejectment case passed through more than five different judges due to
complainant’s
proclivity to file motions for inhibition. In doing so, complainant has
shown that he was avidly shopping for judges favorable to his cause.
His
actuations caused needless clogging of court dockets and unnecessary
duplication
of litigation with all its attendant loss of time, effort, and money on
the part of all concerned.cralaw:red
Complainant may strongly
disagree with the decisions of the respondents but unsubstantiated
allegations
of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law serve no purpose
other
than to harass judges and cast doubt on the integrity of the entire
judiciary.
As a member of the bar for half a century,[24]
complainant should know better than to file an unfounded administrative
complaint.cralaw:red
Verily, this Court is
once again called upon to reiterate that, although the Court will never
tolerate or condone any act, conduct or omission that would violate the
norm of public accountability or diminish the peoples’ faith in the
judiciary,
neither will it hesitate to shield those under its employ from
unfounded
suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly
administration
of justice.[25]
The eloquent words of
the late Justice Conrado V. Sanchez in Rheem of the Philippines vs.
Ferrer[26]
are enlightening:
By now, a
lawyer's
duties to the Court have become commonplace. Really, there could hardly
be any valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof. Section
20(b),
Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, in categorical terms, spells out one such duty: `To
observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers.'
As explicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that
`it
is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful
attitude,
not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but
for the maintenance of its supreme importance.' That same canon, as a
corollary,
makes it peculiarly incumbent upon lawyers to support the courts
against
`unjust criticism and clamor.' And more. The attorney's oath solemnly
binds
him to a conduct that should be `with all good fidelity x
x
x to the courts.' Worth remembering is that the duty of an attorney to
the courts ‘can only be maintained by rendering no service involving
any
disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound to uphold.’
We concede that a
lawyer
may think highly of his intellectual endowment. That is his privilege.
And, he may suffer frustration at what he feels is other’s lack of it.
That is his misfortune. Some such frame of mind, however, should not be
allowed to harden into a belief that he may attack a court’s decision
in
words calculated to jettison the time-honored aphorism that courts are
the temples of right. He should give due allowance to the fact that
judges
are but men; and men are encompassed by error, fettered by fallibility.[27]chanrobles virtual law library
In Surigao Mineral Reservation
Board vs. Cloribel,[28]
Justice Sanchez further elucidated:
A lawyer is
an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself, an instrument
or agency to advance the ends of justice." His duty is to uphold the
dignity
and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, "not to promote
distrust in the administration of justice." Faith in the courts a
lawyer
should seek to preserve. For, to undermine the judicial edifice "is
disastrous
to the continuity of government and to the attainment of the liberties
of the people." Thus has it been said of a lawyer that "[a]s an officer
of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not
destroy
unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so
essential
to the proper administration of justice."chanrobles virtual law library
It still behooves
Santiago
to justify his language with the statement that it was necessary for
the
defense of his client. A client's cause does not permit an attorney to
cross the line between liberty and license. Lawyers must always keep in
perspective the thought that "[s]ince lawyers are administrators of
justice,
oath-bound servants of society, their first duty is not to their
clients,
as many suppose, but to the administration of justice; to this, their
clients'
success is wholly subordinate; and their conduct ought to and must be
scrupulously
observant of law and ethics." As rightly observed by Mr. Justice
Malcolm
in his well-known treatise, a judge from the very nature of his
position,
lacks the power to defend himself and it is the attorney, and no other,
who can better or more appropriately support the judiciary and the
incumbent
of the judicial position. From this, Mr. Justice Malcolm continued to
say:
"It will of course be a trying ordeal for attorneys under certain
conditions
to maintain respectful obedience to the court. It may happen that
counsel
possesses greater knowledge of the law than the justice of the peace or
judge who presides over the court. It may also happen that since no
court
claims infallibility, judges may grossly err in their decisions.
Nevertheless,
discipline and self-restraint on the part of the bar even under adverse
conditions are necessary for the orderly administration of justice."
The precepts, the teachings,
the injunctions just recited are not unfamiliar to lawyers. And yet,
this
Court finds in the language of Atty. Santiago a style that undermines
and
degrades the administration of justice. The stricture in Section 3(d)
of
Rule 71 of the Rules
- against improper conduct tending to degrade the administration of
justice
- is thus transgressed. Atty. Santiago is guilty of contempt of court.[29]
(Citations omitted.)chanrobles virtual law library
In fine, the administrative
case against respondents is utterly devoid of factual and legal basis.
It is frivolous, calculated merely to harass, annoy, and cast a
groundless
aspersion on respondents’ integrity and reputation. Complainant’s
unfounded
imputations against respondents is malicious and offends the dignity of
the entire judiciary. For this, complainant is guilty of contempt of
court
and must be sentenced to pay a fine of P20,000.00.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, complainant
lawyers Francisco Galman Cruz is found guilty of Contempt of Court and
is FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) with a
warning
that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with
more
severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 17.
[2]
Id., p. 16.
[3]
Id., p. 29.
[4]
Id., p. 30.
[5]
Id., p. 40.
[6]
Id., p. 45.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Concurred in by Justices Corona Ibay-Somera and Elvi John S. Asuncion,
id., p. 65.
[8]
Id., p. 73.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Id., p. 99.
[10]
Id., p. 101.
[11]
Id., p. 136.
[12]
Id., p. 142.
[13]
Id., p. 3.
[14]
Id., p. 4.
[15]
Id., p. 230.
[16]
Id., p. 247.
[17]
Id., p. 249.
[18]
Id., p. 343.
[19]
Id., p. 344.
[20]
Bacar vs. De Guzman, Jr., 271 SCRA 328, 338 (1997).chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Ang vs. Asis, 373 SCRA 91, 99 (2002); Daracan vs. Natividad, 341 SCRA
161,
177 (2000); Lambino vs. De Vera, 275 SCRA 60, 64 (1997).
[22]
Licudine vs. Saquilayan, 396 SCRA 650, 656 (2003); Montes vs. Bugtas,
356
SCRA 539, 545 (2001); Barbers vs. Laguio, Jr., 351 SCRA 606, 634
(2001);
Sarmiento vs. Salamat, 364 SCRA 301, 308 (2001); Lorena vs. Encomienda,
302 SCRA 632, 641 (1999); Cortes vs. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423, 456 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Licudine vs. Saquilayan, supra; Sarmiento vs. Salamat, supra; Onquit
vs.
Binamira-Parcia, 297 SCRA 354, 364 (1998).
[24]
Complainant was admitted to the Philippine Bar on January 18, 1954.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
Ang vs. Quilala, 396 SCRA 645, 649 (2003); Sarmiento vs. Salamat, supra.
[26]
20 SCRA 441 (1967).chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
Id., p. 444.
[28]
31 SCRA 1 (1970).
[29]
Id., pp. 16-18.
chan
robles virtual law library |