ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1523-MTJ. November 22, 2004]

RACINES vs. MORALLOS

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 22 2004 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1523-MTJ (Jaime Racines vs. Judge Jose P. Morallos, and Sheriff III Benjamin Cabusao, Jr., MeTC, Branch 68, Pasig City.)

Considering the Report of the Court Administrator dated September 14, 2004 , to wit:

1) A COMPLAINT dated December 15, 2003 (with enclosures) of Mr. Jaime Racines.

Complainant is charging respondents Judge Jose P. Morallos and Sheriff III Benjamin Cabusao, Jr., both of MeTC, Branch 68, Pasig City with Violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code, Violation of Sections 3(c) and 4(b) of Republic Act 3019, Violation of Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Violation of Rules 1-01, 1-02, 2-01 and 3-01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, relative to Civil Case No. 9681 entitled "Jellicom Manpower and Transport Services/Maribeth C. Gavino vs. Jaime Racines and all persons claiming rights under him," for Ejectment.

Complainant is a lessee of a stall situated in the Caruncho Market Complex, Malinao, Pasig City. He alleges that per agreement with the lessor, Gerry Commercial Inc. represented by Gerry Chua, there would be no increase in rental as long as the lessee will maintain the leased premises and make repairs at his own expense. However, sometime in October 2002, he received a notice of increase in rental effective December 2002 from a Maribeth Cabusao Gavino as the alleged Administration Officer of the building. Complainant thereafter inquired about the unjustified 100% to 150% increase in rental from the lessor. Complainant found out that there was a certain group headed by respondent sheriff that was interested in the leased property. To avoid respondent sheriffs involvement in the disputes, the lessor instructed herein complainant to deposit his rental payments in the account of the Vendor's Association in trust for Gerry Chua.

Complainant further avers that in the last week of December 2002, Ms. Gavino of Jellicom Manpower and Transport Services filed a complaint against complainant herein as well as the other lessees with the Office of the Barangay Malinao, Pasig City for alleged non-payment of rentals. Complainant and the rest of the stall holders refused to pay. Thus, a certification to file action in court was issued.

Complainant states that on October 15, 2003, respondent Judge rendered a Decision in favor of plaintiff in said case. Complainant questions respondent judge's appreciation of the facts laid down by the plaintiff. He avers that respondent judge is liable for the offenses charged against him. Likewise, complainant states that respondent sheriff is civilly liable as a third party intruder.

2)����� COMMENT dated February 10, 2004 of respondent Judge Jose P. Morallos.

Respondent judge rebuts the charges leveled against him by complainant. He argues that he rendered a decision in the above-entitled case on the basis of the facts, the evidence and the law applicable, in good faith. Respondent judge asserts that complainant's remedy is not to file an administrative complaint but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction.

3)����� A COMMENT dated February 17, 2004 of respondent Sheriff Benjamin Cabusao, Jr.

Respondent sheriff states that charges filed against him by complainant are not applicable except the charge of violation of Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. The other alleged violations do not pertain to sheriffs.

According to respondent sheriff, the filing of the ejectment complaint did not deprive complainant of his property right. He argues that plaintiff therein was only asserting his right as a lessor over the leased property subject of the above-entitled case. Respondent sheriff further argues that due process of law was observed. Hence, the instant administrative proceeding is not the proper remedy.

EVALUATION: The instant complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit.

As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability whether civil, criminal or administrative for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. 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.

Thus, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge, but to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order is tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty.

A perusal of the records failed to indicate any improper motive on the part of the respondent judge when he rendered the assailed decision. A judge's failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable.

Likewise, respondent sheriff cannot be held administratively liable. It is apparent that the instant complaint is judicial in nature and not within our administrative competence considering that the remedy or relief sought by herein complainant is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

RECOMMENDATION:��������� Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint against Judge Jose P. Morallos and Sheriff Benjamin Cabusao, Jr. be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with the law and the facts on record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

It should be noted that the complaint is glaringly bereft of any allegation or proof that respondent judge acted with malice or bad faith. Complainant only avers that respondent judge made a mistake in his appreciation and evaluation of the facts or evidence on record. However, such mistakes, if indeed there is any, are not subject to administrative sanction. It is settled principle that to merit disciplinary sanction, the error or mistake of a judge must be so gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in bad faith, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, a defective or erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith. ^[1] cralaw In this case, complainant failed to show that the actuation of respondent judge was attended by bad faith or bias.

With regard to the charges against Sheriff III Benjamin Cabusao, Jr., there is nothing on record to show that he has used or abused his position or office to influence in any way the outcome of this case. The evidence before us only shows that he is the proprietor of Jellicom Manpower & Transport Services (hereinafter Jellicom) and on January 31, 2000, he entered into a Contract of Lease with Gerry Commercial Inc. over the parcel of land on which the market stalls subject of the dispute were located. As such lessor of the land, Jellicom was then subrogated to the right of the owner, Gerry Commercial Inc., to demand rentals from the complainant who occupies one of the disputed market stalls. It was only in December of 2002 that Jellicom decided to increase rentals for said market stalls. When complainant failed to pay Jellicom the increased rentals, the latter instituted on February 11, 2003 the subject action for ejectment. It should be emphasized that there is nothing on record to show that complainant was deprived of due process or that there were any irregularities attending the proceedings in said ejectment case. The mere fact that respondent sheriff, as complainant's sub-lessor, is the real party-in-interest in the ejectment case against the latter, does not make respondent administratively liable.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Jose P. Morallos and Sheriff Benjamin Cabusao, Jr. is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. Complainant Jaime Racines is hereby DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing an utterly baseless and unfounded administrative case.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Del Callar vs. em>Salvador, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1369, Feb. 17, 1997, 268 SCRA 320, 330.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011