ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1983-RTJ.
HERNANDEZ vs. ZAMORA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
RESOLUTION
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1983-RTJ (Gloria Hernandez vs. Judge Romeo F. Zamora, Regional Trial I Court, em>Quezon City , Branch 94.)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator
dated
1.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT
dated
Complainant, who is the mother of the accused in the aforementioned
criminal case, narrates that on
On
Complainant asserts that while the respondent judge had already issued a Resolution dated 08 March 2004 granting their motion for inhibition, still the issuance thereof was tainted with "deliberate misleading facts" not only for failing to mention therein the grounds raised in the motion for reinvestigation but also in beclouding their assertion that it was a certain Teresita Matias Cruz a.k.a. Marites Cruz, mother of the "real/principal suspect," who disclosed her alleged affinity to respondent judge.
2.������
COMMENT dated
Respondent judge asserts that the present administrative complaint is a plain and simple harassment suit.
He narrates that on
Respondent stresses that he acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence and did not act capriciously and whimsically in denying the motion for reinvestigation filed by the herein accused. He, likewise, denies the charges that it was the parent of the real/principal suspect who "name dropped" her affinity to respondent and brands the same as bare allegations without any factual basis.
3.������
REPLY dated
Complainant claims that her son, Randy Hernandez, did not waive his
right to preliminary investigation at the time the inquest proceeding was
conducted last
Complainant contends that the proceeding in the subject criminal case was conducted by the respondent judge in a very hasty manner thereby depriving her son of due process. She claims that respondent:
a.����� failed to set the motion for reinvestigation for hearing in violation of the procedural requirement that all motions should be set for hearing;
b.����� instead of setting the arraignment, should have asked the accused to reply on the opposition filed by the public prosecutor; and
c.����� resolves questions without conducting properly hearing their side in a fair and equitable manner.
EVALUATION: The present administrative complaint centers on the propriety of the accusations of the herein respondent judge in issuing an order denying the motion for reinvestigation filed by the complainant and her son, Randy Hernandez, in Criminal Case No. Q-03-121976. If complainant believes that the actuations of the respondent judge is (sic) highly improper and irregular, the relief sought should not be that of administrative disciplinary proceedings but a judicial relief as envisaged by the Rules of Court.
More importantly, it is the established doctrine and policy of this
Court that an administrative action 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, an appeal, or a
petition for certiorari. Disciplinary
proceedings against a judge are not complementary or suppletory
of, nor substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or
extraordinary. For obviously, if
subsequent developments prove the judge's challenged act to be correct, there
would be no occasion to proceed against him at all. Besides, to hold a judge administratively
liable for every erroneous ruling or decision he render, assuming that he has
erred, 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 administering justice can be infallible in
his judgment. It is only where the error is tainted with bad faith, fraud,
malice, or dishonesty that administrative sanctions may be imposed against the
erring judge. (Spouses Guzman vs. Judge Pamintuan, A.M.
No. RTJ-02-1736,
Anent the charge of bias and partiality, the same is unmeritorious. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge. The only exception to the rule is when the error is so gross and patent as to produce an ineluctable inference of bad faith and malice which is not present here. (Spouses Guzman vs. Judge Pamintuan, ibid)
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Romeo F. Zamora of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
We fully agree with the Court Administrator.
As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. [1] cralaw The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. [2] cralaw 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. [3] cralaw
Furthermore, if the complainant fails to prove the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. [4] cralaw
It must be stressed that the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the assailed decision or order, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. [5] cralaw
Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [6] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Judge Romeo F. Zamora is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o, 251 SCRA 174 (1995).
[2] cralaw Abdula v. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1 (2000).
[3] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio, 400 SCRA 32 (2003).
[4] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Emilio B. Legaspi, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Br. 22, 405 SCRA 514 (2003).
[5] cralaw Julie C. Pitney v. Judge Zeus C. Abrogar, 415 SCRA 377 (2003).
[6] cralaw Balsamo v. Suan, 411 SCRA 189 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
