DOMINADOR BIADO, MAMERTO BIADO, CARLITO DELA CRUZ, NORMA DELA CRUZ, DANILO DELA CRUZ, ROMULO MARANO SR., FRANCISCO PADILLA, LOLITA ABLIR AND SONNY TONGCALO, Complainants vs. HON. MARIETTA S. BRAWNER-CUALING, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT [MCTC], TUBA-SABLAN, BENGUET, Respondents
A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-2792-MTJ]
February 15, 2017
FACTS:
On December 9, 2011, respondent judge issued a Decision in favor of the Heirs of Cariño Sioco. In her decision, respondent judge found that all the elements of unlawful detainer were present in the case.9 She directed the complainants to vacate the disputed lot and to "turn over the possession to the plaintiffs." She also ordered them to pay monthly rental fees to the heirs until they vacated the premises.
Complainants appealed before the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet.However, their appeal was dismissed due to their "failure to appear and participate in it." Since there was no further appeal made, respondent judge's decision became final and executory.
On December 14, 2012, through motion of the prevailing party, respondent Judge issued an Order granting the Heirs of Cariño Sioco's Motion for Execution. Similarly, she issued a Writ for Execution ordering the sheriff to cause the immediate implementation of the Decision.
Complainants opposed the assailed decision and Writ of Execution, and claimed that respondent judge had no jurisdiction over the case.They insisted that the disputed property was not within the jurisdiction of Tuba-Sablan, Benguet but within Pangasinan. Moreover, there was an "existing boundary dispute between Pangasinan and Benguet."They asserted that they had already brought this matter to respondent judge's attention and "sought deferment on the case pending the resolution of the boundary issue." To bolster their claim, they even allegedly presented the Municipal Index Map of San Manuel, Pangasinan and the Land Clarification of Benguet and Pangasinan. However, these were ignored by the respondent judge.
Complainants averred that respondent judge should have at least "inquired by herself" on the exact location of the disputed property to determine if she had jurisdiction over the case. Respondent judge showed her gross ignorance of the law and her manifest partiality against them for her failure to know the exact location of the disputed property. For this reason, they were prompted to file this administrative case against her.
In her Comment dated November 23, 2015, respondent judge denied the accusations relative to her alleged manifest partiality and gross ignorance of the law. She claimed that this administrative complaint was a "mere ploy to divert the implementation of the decision in Civil Case No. 302," which already attained finality as of September 17, 2012, per Entry of Judgment dated January 23, 2013. A Writ of Execution had already been issued, which complainants ignored.A Writ of Demolition has likewise been issued after complainants failed to willingly remove their constructions. Instead of obeying the writ, complainants filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 131838. Their petition, however, was dismissed33 on October 4,2013.
Due to complainants' "obstinate refusal" to comply with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court's order, the Heirs of Cariño Sioco filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt against them docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. 03, which has been pending resolution.
Respondent judge maintained that she had jurisdiction to rule over the case.She relied on the plaintiff's complaint and the respondent's answer, which "categorically stated that both parties were residents and/or occupants of the parcels of land located at Barangay Ansangan, Tuba, Benguet," Several other documents submitted by the complainants, showed that they acknowledged the fact that the disputed property was in Benguet and not in San Manuel, Pangasinan.
Contrary to complainants' assertion that they immediately raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction as soon as they learned about it, "it was only in their position paper, by way of a motion to dismiss, that complainants for the first time, questioned the court's lack of jurisdiction." Also, respondent judge maintained that she did not ignore this issue and even ruled on the matter in her assailed decision.
The Office of the Court Administrator, through a Report dated June 28, 2016, recommended the dismissal of this case for being judicial in nature and for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Office of the Court Administrator is correct in its recommendation of the dismissal of the case for being judicial in nature and lack of merit?
RULING:
We affirm the recommendation.
This administrative complaint is due to respondent judge's cognizance of Civil Case No. 302 and her consequent issuance of the assailed Decision dated December 9, 2011 as well as the Writ of Execution. Complainants assert that these decisions were tainted with manifest partiality and that respondent judge's conduct constitutes gross ignorance of the law since she ruled on the case even though she had no jurisdiction over it.
An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a Judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available. It must be underscored that "the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action." He cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, "no matter how erroneous," provided he acts in good faith.
In this case, it is apparent that the assailed orders relate to respondent judge's acts in her judicial capacity. These alleged errors, therefore, cannot be the proper subject of an administrative proceeding, but is only correctible through judicial remedies. Hence, what complainants should have done was to appeal the assailed orders to the higher court .for review and not to file an administrative complaint against responden t judge. "Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary.
The complainants' imputation of gross ignorance of the law must also fail. "Gross ignorance transcends a simple error in the application of legal provisions. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous."
To be liable for gross ignorance of the law, the assailed orders of a judge, who acts in his official capacity, should not only be erroneous; it must be established that his actuation was attended by "bad faith, dishonesty, hatred" or other similar motive.
Complainants oppose the assailed decision and Writ of Execution and claim that respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the case. The disputed property is allegedly not within the jurisdiction of Tuba-Sablan, Benguet but in Pangasinan. Complainants assert that while they have already brought the matter to respondent judge's attention, they were nevertheless ignored.
Similarly, complainants' assertion of respondent judge's manifest partiality against them cannot prosper. Manifest partiality pertains to "a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other."63Thus, a mere imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is insufficient because "bias and partiality can never be presumed."
Since "bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party,"it is incumbent upon the complainants to prove that respondent judge was manifestly partial against them. Their failure to prove this is fatal to their cause. Apart from their bare allegations, complainants offered no other independent proof to validate this allegation.
Complainants' failure to substantiate their claims in an administrative proceeding can cause the dismissal of the case for lack of merit.67"In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that a judge has regularly performed his duties will prevail."
WHEREFORE, this administrative complaint against Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment