FIRST DIVISION
BENITO ANG,
Complainant,
A.M.
NO.
MTJ-03-1476
February 4, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE REINATO G.
QUILALA,CLERK OF COURT
ZENAIDA
REYES-MACABEOAND CLERK III LOUIE
MACABEO, MeTC, MANILA,
Respondents. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
R E S O L U T I
O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a verified complaint
dated October 17, 1997,[1]
Benito Ang charged Presiding Judge Reinato G. Quilala, Clerk of Court
Zenaida
Reyes-Macabeo and Clerk III Louie Macabeo, all of the Metropolitan
Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 26, with extortion relative to Criminal Cases
Nos.
266370-266392-CR.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Benito Ang
was charged with estafa[2]
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila involving the sum of
P3,185,276.00
and 22 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22[3]
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, presided by respondent
judge.
He attended the scheduled arraignment before the RTC on June 21, 1997
but
failed to attend the arraignment before the MeTC on June 30, 1997. On
the
same day, Judge Quilala issued a warrant of arrest and ordered the
confiscation
and forfeiture of his surety bond.[4]
When complainant filed
the Motion to Lift the Warrant of Arrest, a certain Louie Macabeo,
Clerk
III, told him, "Kung gusto mo tutulungan kita. Ibigay mo sa akin ang
telephone
number mo." He further alleged that the clerk asked him for P30,000.00.
However, he did not give his telephone number, only his pager number.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A week later, the clerk
paged him to return his call, which he did. During their telephone
conversation,
the clerk told him, "Papaano na ang case mo. Ilalabas ko na ba ang
warrant?"
He answered, "Teka, kakausapin ko muna ang lawyer ko." Thereafter, he
called
up his lawyer, who advised him not to give in to the extortion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 14, 1997,
complainant filed a motion for reconsideration and/or to lift order of
arrest.[5]
Respondent judge denied the motion on August 21, 1997.[6]
On September 9, 1997, his counsel requested the Branch Clerk of Court
not
to release the bench warrant because they will file a motion for
reconsideration
of the August 21, 1997 Order. The following morning, complainant was
shocked
when he was served the bench warrant by the Western Police District
Manila.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently, at 1:20
in the afternoon of the same day, his counsel filed a Very Urgent
Motion
for Reconsideration[7]
of the August 21, 1997 Order and asked the Branch Clerk of Court to
calendar
the hearing of the motion on the same day at 2:00 o’clock. His counsel
waited patiently for the motion to be acted upon. At 4:00 in the
afternoon,
respondent judge denied[8]
the motion. Thus, complainant had to spend the night in detention when
he failed to put up the required bond. On the basis of the foregoing
allegations,
complainant prayed that respondent judge together with his Clerk of
Court
and Clerk III be administratively sanctioned for acting in concert to
extort
money from him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent judge filed
his Comment on June 8, 1998 while respondents Clerk III Luis Macabeo
and
Clerk of Court Zenaida Reyes-Macabeo submitted their Comment on June
10,
1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Judge Quilala
explained that after posting the reduced bailbond as recommended by the
Manila Public Prosecutor’s Office, arraignment of accused Ang for
violation
of BP 22 was scheduled on June 30, 1997. Neither Ang nor his counsel,
however
appeared during the arraignment, thus he issued the order for his
arrest
on the same day.cralaw:red
On August 14, 1997,
Ang through counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Lift
Order
of Arrest, stating that he did not attend the arraignment because he
was
indisposed. The motion was denied by respondent judge on the ground
that
the reason alleged by Ang for non-appearance was flimsy. He also
ordered
that the total bailbond of P338,000.00 as recommended by the
prosecution,
pursuant to the Latest Bailbond Guide of the Department of Justice be
reinstated.[9]
Ang, nevertheless failed to post the required bond. As a result, the
police
served the warrant against him in the morning of September 10, 1997. At
2:00 in the afternoon, Ang filed a Very Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration
of the August 21, 1997 Order, without showing proper receipt thereof by
the Office of the Prosecutor of Manila. Despite said procedural defect,
he gave due course to the motion. He, nonetheless, denied said motion
for
lack of merit. Thereafter, he inhibited from hearing the BP 22 cases.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Both Clerk of Court
Zenaida Reyes-Macabeo and her husband Clerk III Louie Macabeo
vehemently
denied the charges filed against them. Zenaida claimed that the
administrative
case was filed because of the respondent judge’s refusal to grant
complainant’s
motion. She released the bench warrant after Judge Quilala signed the
same
because she had no control over the processes issued by the judge. She
did not calendar Ang’s Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed at
1:20 in the afternoon of September 10, 1997 because the hearings of the
motions on criminal cases are scheduled only in the morning.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Louie Macabeo
claimed that it was impossible for him to demand money from Ang whom he
just met. Being an ordinary clerk, he could not assure the accused that
the respondent judge would act favorably on his motion. He denied
having
talked to him on the telephone on August 14, 1997 or the week after. He
could not have promised to delay the release of the warrant of arrest
since
it had been issued as early as August 10, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon referral of the
case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, the
latter recommended the dismissal of the administrative case against the
respondents. The Office of the Court Administrator found that there was
nothing irregular in the conduct of the respondent judge in denying the
motions for reconsideration, the same being in accordance with the
Rules.
There was also no concrete evidence that respondents indeed acted in
concerted
effort to commit extortion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the findings
of the Court Administrator.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The settled doctrine
is that judges are not liable to respond in a civil action for damages,
and are not otherwise administratively responsible for what they may do
in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their
legal
powers and jurisdiction.[10]
Certain it is that a judge may not be held administratively accountable
for every erroneous order or decision he renders.[11]
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
administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.[12]
More importantly, the error must be gross or patent, deliberate and
malicious,
or incurred with evident bad faith.[13]
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it
imputes
a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a
wrong;
a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill-will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud.[14]
It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design
or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While this Court will
never tolerate or condone any act, conduct or omission that would
violate
the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's 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.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the instant case,
respondent judge denied the first motion for reconsideration for
complainant’s
failure to attend the scheduled arraignment on the ground that he was
indisposed
to attend the same. Respondent judge’s action was within his own
judicial
discretion. Any error therein that a dissatisfied litigant may raise
would
be merely an error of judgment, for which the judge may not be held
administratively
liable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The second urgent motion
for reconsideration dated September 10, 1997 was likewise correctly
denied.
First, the motion does not contain proof of service on the Prosecutor’s
Office, in disregard of the 3-day notice rule. Second, the motion has
no
legal basis considering that the reinstatement of the original bond in
the amount of P338,000.00 is proper. The bond was recommended by the
prosecution
and was earlier approved by the trial court, pursuant to the latest
Bailbond
Guide issued by the Secretary of the Department of Justice.cralaw:red
The record does not
show that respondent judge was moved by ill-will or bad faith in
rendering
the adverse judgment, or that his ruling was manifestly unjust.
Complainant
has not, in fact, adduced any proof to show that impropriety attended
the
issuance of the subject resolutions. Bad faith is not presumed and he
who
alleges the same has the onus of proving it.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The alleged error of
the respondent judge was not gross, and the record is bereft of any
showing
of deliberate or malicious intent on the part of respondent judge to
cause
prejudice to any party.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards the charge
of extortion, no proof was presented by the complainant against the
officers
of the court. Therefore, the dismissal of the administrative charge
against
them is proper.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the administrative complaint against Judge Reinato G.
Quilala,
Clerk of Court Zenaida Reyes-Macabeo and Clerk III Louie Macabeo, MeTC,
Branch 26, Manila is DISMISSED for lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Annex 'A' to the Complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Annex 'B' to the Complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Annex 'C' to the Complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Annex 'D' to the Complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Annex 'E' to the Complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Annex 'F' to the Complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Annex 'G' to the Complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Certification issued by the Western Police District, Warrant and
Subpoena
Unit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Alzua, et al. v. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308, 326.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rodrigo v. Quijano, etc., 79 SCRA 10 [1977].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Lopez v. Corpuz, 78 SCRA 374 [1977]; Pilipinas Bank v. Tirona-Liwag,
190
SCRA 834 [1990].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Quizon v. Balthazar, Jr., 65 SCRA 293 [1975].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Spiegel v. Beacon Participation, 8 NE 2nd Series 895, 1007.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 [1996].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Sarmiento v. Salamat, A.M. No. P-01-1501, 4 September 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Ford, Phils. v. CA, 267 SCRA 320 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |