ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-1824-MTJ. September 18, 2006]

NORA OBINIANA v. JUDGE RENATO B. BERCADES, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, VICTORIA, LAGUNA

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 18, 2006 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-1824-MTJ (Nora Obiniana v. Judge Renato B. Bercades, Acting Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Victoria, Laguna)

Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated August 11, 2006, to wit:

REASON FOR AGENDA: In her VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated 16 February 2006, complainant charged respondent with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Judicial Discretion and Violation of Code of Judicial Conduct relative to Criminal Case No. 4267 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Norberto Obiniana and Josefina Banca" for Concubinage .

Complainant alleged that respondent committed grave transgression of the well established laws and jurisprudence when he issued his order dated 11 January 2005 wherein upon motion, the accused was re-arraigned and entered a plea of guilty for which the accused was sentenced to suffer a penalty of two years and four months imprisonment, and to pay the cost. She also assailed respondent's order dated 27 January 2006 wherein, based on a Demurrer to Evidence, he dismissed the case against accused Banca.

She claimed that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in "making an assumption" that, based on the evidence presented, the act complained of does not fall under any of the three ways of committing the crime of concubinage.

In his COMMENT dated 23 June 2006, respondent informed the Office of the Court Administrator that he compulsorily retired on 3 March 2006 and he used to preside over five (5) salas which explained why he failed to receive the 1st Indorsement dated 28 February 2006.

He argued that, complainant questioned the wisdom of his decision. He added that there are adequate remedies under the rules to correct the alleged erroneous decision of the court, which she failed to avail. In lieu thereof, she filed an administrative complaint. He stated that his decision may not be picture perfect "but that was my conclusion after shifting the shaft from the grain, so to speak."

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: Respondent compulsorily retired on 3 March 2006.

EVALUATION: The complaint is devoid of merit.

The error attributed to respondent pertained to the exercise of his adjudicative functions. As correctly stated by respondent, the same should have been assailed in a judicial proceeding instead of this present administrative case. In Maquiran v. Grageda (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1888, 11 February 2005) it was held:

As everyone knows, the law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities being committed by a Trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e., error in appreciation or admission of evidence, or in construction or application of procedural or substantive law or legal principle) include a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition of judgment or final order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary remedies against error or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character (i.e., whimsical, capricious, despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are, inter alia , the special civil action of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a petition for change of venue, as the case may be.

Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether [of] civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed.

Law and logic decree that "administrative" or criminal remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available, and must wait on the result thereof. Indeed, since judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors, they should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions; and it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute, that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith; and that exceptionally, prosecution of the judge can be had only if "there be a final declaration by a competent court in some appropriate proceeding of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment or order, and ** also evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance of inexcusable negligence, on the part of the judge in rendering said judgment or order" or under the stringent circumstances set out in Article 32 of the Civil Code.

Moreover, it must be noted that the complaint was filed on February 16, 2006, almost a month before the compulsory retirement of respondent. A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC provides for measures necessary to prevent or, at least discourage the filing of baseless and unfounded administrative complaints to protect the orderly administration of justice. This case is one of the instances wherein A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC applies. It provides:

2. If the [complaint] is (a) filed within six months before the compulsory retirement of a Justice [or] Judge; (b) for an alleged cause of action that occurred at least a year before such filing; and (c) shown prima facie that it is intended to harass the respondent, it must forthwith be recommended for dismissal.

In view of the foregoing, the instant case must be dismissed for lack of merit.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint against respondent Judge (retired) Renato B. Bercades be DISMISSED for lack of merit. [1] cralaw

The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA.

It is a settled rule that the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A magistrate cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative, for any official act, no matter how erroneous, as long as he or she acts in good faith. [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 It is likewise settled that the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. [4] cralaw An administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by an order or judgment, for until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether the respondent judge is administratively liable. [5] cralaw

The Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative case against Judge Renato B. Bercades.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRlQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 13-15.

[2] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-955, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 174, 194.

[3] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio , 448 Phil. 37, 42 (2003).

[4] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar , A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 377, 382, citing Balsamo v. Suan , 411 SCRA 189 (2003).

[5] cralaw Sacmar v. Reyes-Carpio , supra, at 44.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com