January 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > January 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2202-RTJ : January 14, 2009] L.T. & SONS, INC., BUTUAN PREMIER DISTRIBUTION, INC., SUPREME THEATHER CORP., AND TAN ENTERPRISES, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS CORPORATE SECRETARY, ATTY. ALEX Y. TAN VS. JUDGE ULRIC R. CAÑETE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BANCH 55, MANDAUE , CEBU CITY:
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2202-RTJ : January 14, 2009]
L.T. & SONS, INC., BUTUAN PREMIER DISTRIBUTION, INC., SUPREME THEATHER CORP., AND TAN ENTERPRISES, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS CORPORATE SECRETARY, ATTY. ALEX Y. TAN VS. JUDGE ULRIC R. CAÑETE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BANCH 55, MANDAUE , CEBU CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 14 January 2009:
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2202-RTJ - (L.T. & Sons, Inc., Butuan Premier Distribution, Inc., Supreme Theather Corp., and Tan Enterprises, Inc., represented by its Corporate Secretary, Atty. Alex Y. Tan vs. Judge Ulric R. Ca�ete, Regional Trial Court, Banch 55, Mandaue , Cebu City)
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by L.T. & Sons, Inc., Butuan Premier Distribution, Inc., Supreme Theater Corp., and Tan Enterprises, Inc., represented by its Corporate Secretary, Atty. Alex Y. Tan (complaints) praying that the Resolution of the Court dated July 28, 2008 be reversed and set aside. The Resolution adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) [1] and dismissed for lack of merit their complaint against Judge Ulric R. Ca�ete (respondent) of the Regional Trial (RTC), Branch 55, Mandaue, Cebu City for Gross Misconduct, Bias and Partiality, Conspiracy, Gross Ignorance of the Law and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment.
The OCA in its Report dated May 27, 2008, found that complaint-corporations, defendants in Civil Case No. MAN-4397 [2] for Sum of Money and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, failed to present sufficient proof to substantiate their charges against respondent. While it is true that respondent issued an Order on August 13, 2002 granting the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on all of defendant's properties, without conducting any hearing thereon, such is allowed by Sec. 2, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court which provides that an order of attachment may be issued ex parte upon the sound discretion of the court. And while respondent may have erred in including in its order complaint-corporations' properties, such is merely an error of judgment, which i the absence of showing of bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, respondent could not be held administratively liable for. Bare allegation that a judge is partial to one of the parties is also insufficient to hold him liable for gross misconduct, bias, partiality and conspiracy with the plaintiffs' counsel as mere allegation without more cannot overturn the presumption that a judge acted regularly and with impartiality. [3]
In moving for the reconsideration of the Court's resolution, complaints now aver that: the Court's dismissal of their complaint by minute resolution, adopting and approving the findings and recommendation of the OCA is contrary to the Court's rulings that in case of a variance in findings, there is a need to give due course to the petition; the OCA Report which the Court adopted found that respondent only committed an error of judgment while the CA in its Decision[4] on complainants' Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus dated December 15, 2003, found that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the August 13, 2002 Order which is equivalent to gross ignorance of the law and/or rendering an unjust order; respondent's order was issued without any factual and legal bases, which shows that respondent is not conversant with basic principled of law and that (he same was issued with malice and bad. faith; as correctly found by the CA, if there was fraud committed by the individual defendants in the civil case, the cause of action is limited to them alone and does not extend to herein complainant-corporations which have separate and distinct juridical personalities: from its owners; an order of attachment also cannot be issued on a general averment which is what was given by the plaintiff in the civil case.
Complainants further claim that respondent's manifest bias and partiality was shown when respondent issued an order giving the opposing parry in the civil case five days -within which to file a written opposition to their Urgent Motion to Lift/Discharge Writ of Preliminary Attachment and by setting the motion for hearing on September 22, 2008, even though said motion is non-litigious as the filing of the same was based on the CA Decision which annulled and set aside the Order of respondent dated August 13, 2002 and which must be implemented and enforced immediately.[5]
Respondent filed his Opposition dated October 9,2008, arguing that: the CA Decision which set aside the writ of preliminary attachment did not establish bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose on his part; only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross; ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned, and a judge cannot be subjected to liability for an official act, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith; his was an honest judgment that the complaint and the affidavit contained sufficient allegations of fraud to, warrant the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against all the defendants including herein complainant-corporations; furthermore, the order giving the "other party time to comment on the inotion to lift/discharge writ of preliminary attachment was only to comply with procedure and not because of any bias or partiality; respondent had to hear the urgent motion since complainants themselves set it for hearing with notice to the plaintiff; on August 29, 2008, however, the date they asked for the hearing of the motion, complainants and their counsel did not appear; in any event, respondent already issued an Order granting the urgent motion to lift/discharge the writ of preliminary attachment on September 23,2008.
The Court denies the motion for lack of merit.
It is well-settled that as a matter of public policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption.[6] To hold otherwise would make a judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the administration of justice can be infallible.[7]
The fact that respondent's order was reversed by the CA could not be used as basis for an administrative sanction.[8] The error attributed to respondent pertains to the exercise of his adjudicative functions and in the absence of fraud, dishonesty and corruption, the acts in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be subjected to liability � civil, criminal or administrative � for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous it may be as long as he acts in good faith.[9] Indeed, only errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned.[10]
In this case, while respondent may have erred in issuing the order granting the application for writ of attachment against all defendants including herein complainant-corporations, complainants however failed to show that such error was tainted with bad faith. Well-settled is the rule that bad faith is not presumed and he who alleges the same has the onus of proving it.'[11] 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 and contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes; while evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intention the part of the accused to do "wrong or cause damage.[12] Complainants merely alleged bad forth and failed to present other proofs to support their accusation.
There is also no basis to hold respondent liable for bias and partiality since bare allegations of bias are not enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence without fear or favor. Mere suspicion is not enough and extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself. While a decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge.[13]
In this case, the Court finds insufficient as basis to hold respondent liable for bias and impartiality the fact that he granted the opposing party's prayer for five days within which to file comment on complainant-corporations' urgent motion. It is actually in keeping with the orderly dispensation of the case that the respondent granted the said prayer. In any event, respondent has already acted upon the urgent motion of complainants and has lifted and discharged the writ of preliminary attachment on complainant's properties upon failure of the other party to submit their comment within the period given.[14]
WHEREFORE, complainants' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of merit.'
SO ORDERED.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2202-RTJ - (L.T. & Sons, Inc., Butuan Premier Distribution, Inc., Supreme Theather Corp., and Tan Enterprises, Inc., represented by its Corporate Secretary, Atty. Alex Y. Tan vs. Judge Ulric R. Ca�ete, Regional Trial Court, Banch 55, Mandaue , Cebu City)
RESOLUTIONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by L.T. & Sons, Inc., Butuan Premier Distribution, Inc., Supreme Theater Corp., and Tan Enterprises, Inc., represented by its Corporate Secretary, Atty. Alex Y. Tan (complaints) praying that the Resolution of the Court dated July 28, 2008 be reversed and set aside. The Resolution adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) [1] and dismissed for lack of merit their complaint against Judge Ulric R. Ca�ete (respondent) of the Regional Trial (RTC), Branch 55, Mandaue, Cebu City for Gross Misconduct, Bias and Partiality, Conspiracy, Gross Ignorance of the Law and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment.
The OCA in its Report dated May 27, 2008, found that complaint-corporations, defendants in Civil Case No. MAN-4397 [2] for Sum of Money and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, failed to present sufficient proof to substantiate their charges against respondent. While it is true that respondent issued an Order on August 13, 2002 granting the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on all of defendant's properties, without conducting any hearing thereon, such is allowed by Sec. 2, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court which provides that an order of attachment may be issued ex parte upon the sound discretion of the court. And while respondent may have erred in including in its order complaint-corporations' properties, such is merely an error of judgment, which i the absence of showing of bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, respondent could not be held administratively liable for. Bare allegation that a judge is partial to one of the parties is also insufficient to hold him liable for gross misconduct, bias, partiality and conspiracy with the plaintiffs' counsel as mere allegation without more cannot overturn the presumption that a judge acted regularly and with impartiality. [3]
In moving for the reconsideration of the Court's resolution, complaints now aver that: the Court's dismissal of their complaint by minute resolution, adopting and approving the findings and recommendation of the OCA is contrary to the Court's rulings that in case of a variance in findings, there is a need to give due course to the petition; the OCA Report which the Court adopted found that respondent only committed an error of judgment while the CA in its Decision[4] on complainants' Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus dated December 15, 2003, found that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the August 13, 2002 Order which is equivalent to gross ignorance of the law and/or rendering an unjust order; respondent's order was issued without any factual and legal bases, which shows that respondent is not conversant with basic principled of law and that (he same was issued with malice and bad. faith; as correctly found by the CA, if there was fraud committed by the individual defendants in the civil case, the cause of action is limited to them alone and does not extend to herein complainant-corporations which have separate and distinct juridical personalities: from its owners; an order of attachment also cannot be issued on a general averment which is what was given by the plaintiff in the civil case.
Complainants further claim that respondent's manifest bias and partiality was shown when respondent issued an order giving the opposing parry in the civil case five days -within which to file a written opposition to their Urgent Motion to Lift/Discharge Writ of Preliminary Attachment and by setting the motion for hearing on September 22, 2008, even though said motion is non-litigious as the filing of the same was based on the CA Decision which annulled and set aside the Order of respondent dated August 13, 2002 and which must be implemented and enforced immediately.[5]
Respondent filed his Opposition dated October 9,2008, arguing that: the CA Decision which set aside the writ of preliminary attachment did not establish bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose on his part; only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross; ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned, and a judge cannot be subjected to liability for an official act, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith; his was an honest judgment that the complaint and the affidavit contained sufficient allegations of fraud to, warrant the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against all the defendants including herein complainant-corporations; furthermore, the order giving the "other party time to comment on the inotion to lift/discharge writ of preliminary attachment was only to comply with procedure and not because of any bias or partiality; respondent had to hear the urgent motion since complainants themselves set it for hearing with notice to the plaintiff; on August 29, 2008, however, the date they asked for the hearing of the motion, complainants and their counsel did not appear; in any event, respondent already issued an Order granting the urgent motion to lift/discharge the writ of preliminary attachment on September 23,2008.
The Court denies the motion for lack of merit.
It is well-settled that as a matter of public policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption.[6] To hold otherwise would make a judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the administration of justice can be infallible.[7]
The fact that respondent's order was reversed by the CA could not be used as basis for an administrative sanction.[8] The error attributed to respondent pertains to the exercise of his adjudicative functions and in the absence of fraud, dishonesty and corruption, the acts in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be subjected to liability � civil, criminal or administrative � for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous it may be as long as he acts in good faith.[9] Indeed, only errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned.[10]
In this case, while respondent may have erred in issuing the order granting the application for writ of attachment against all defendants including herein complainant-corporations, complainants however failed to show that such error was tainted with bad faith. Well-settled is the rule that bad faith is not presumed and he who alleges the same has the onus of proving it.'[11] 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 and contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes; while evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intention the part of the accused to do "wrong or cause damage.[12] Complainants merely alleged bad forth and failed to present other proofs to support their accusation.
There is also no basis to hold respondent liable for bias and partiality since bare allegations of bias are not enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence without fear or favor. Mere suspicion is not enough and extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself. While a decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge.[13]
In this case, the Court finds insufficient as basis to hold respondent liable for bias and impartiality the fact that he granted the opposing party's prayer for five days within which to file comment on complainant-corporations' urgent motion. It is actually in keeping with the orderly dispensation of the case that the respondent granted the said prayer. In any event, respondent has already acted upon the urgent motion of complainants and has lifted and discharged the writ of preliminary attachment on complainant's properties upon failure of the other party to submit their comment within the period given.[14]
WHEREFORE, complainants' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of merit.'
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Through Court Administrator Zenaida N. "Elepafia and Deputy Court Administrator Antonio H.
[2] Entitled "James L. King and Diosdado Retuya v. Roderick Lim Go alias Edu Ting, Nelson Go, Go Tong Go, Grace Tan Go, Lucy Go, Rolando Yap Tan, Elena Chiu Tan, Lamberto Tan, L.T. &. Sons, Inc., Butuan Premier Distribution, Inc., Supreme Theater Corp., and Tan Enterprises, Inc. "See rollo, p.72.
[3] Rollo, p. 675.
[4] In CA-GR SP No. 73214 entitled "LT. Sons, Inc., Butuan Premier Distribution, Inc., Supreme Theater Corp., and Tan Enterprises Corp. v. Hon. Ulric R. Canete, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Mandaue City, James L. King, Diosdado Retuya, Sheriff IV Pasnonito Antiporta, Sheriff IV Librado Buendia and Sheriff IV Teofilo Soon ", dated December 15, 2003, penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Sergio L. Pesta�o and concurred in by Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia and Eloy R. Bello, Jr.
[5] Rollo, pp. 680-694.
[6] Tan v. Adre, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898, January 31, 2005, 450 SCKA 145, 151; Spouses Daracan v. Natividad, 395 PHI. 352, 368 (2000).
[7] Tan v. Adre, supra note 6, at 151-152.
[8] Maylas, Jr. v. Sese, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2012, August 4, 2006,497 SCRA 602, 605.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 605-606,
[11] Spouses Daracan v. Natividad, supra note 63 at 369.
[12] Negros Grace Pharmacy, Inc. v. Hilario, 461 Phil. .843, 850 (2003); Spouses Daracan v. Natividad, supra note 6.
[13] Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation, Inc. v. Pizarro, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1750, January 14, 2005, 448 SCRA 140, 156.
[14] See Order dated September 23, 2008.
