FIRST DIVISION
LEONARDO L. RIVERA, A.M.
No. RTJ-06-2013
Complainant, [OCA-IPI No. 06-2509-RTJ]
Present:
-
versus - Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson),
Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
JUDGE BERNABE B.
MENDOZA,
CLERK OF COURT VI
JONATHAN
FLORO D. DELA CRUZ and
SHERIFF IV RIZALDE V. SEVERINO,
all of the Regional Trial Court of Promulgated:
Roxas, Isabela, Branch 23,
Respondents. August 4, 2006
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
In a letter dated October 28, 2005, complainant Leonardo L.
Rivera charged respondents Judge Bernabe B. Mendoza, Clerk of Court VI Jonathan
Floro D. Dela Cruz and Sheriff IV Rizalde V. Severino, all of the Regional
Trial Court of Roxas, Isabela, Branch 23, with Manifest Bias and Partiality relative
to Civil Case No. 23-569 entitled Sps. Leonardo and Francisca Rivera v.
Dolores Ll. Querubin.
Rivera
alleged that Judge Mendoza issued a writ of execution despite lack of final and
executory judgment and that he was biased in favor of Querubin who was an
Australian citizen.
On
However,
in a letter dated
In
the Report dated
We
agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Section
1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION
1. How instituted. - Proceedings
for the discipline of Judges of regular and
special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be
instituted motu propio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified
complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of
the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said
allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of
indubitable integrity. The complaint
shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and
omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges
by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Emphasis supplied)
Likewise,
the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service require
that the complaint against all civil servants, like respondents Clerk of Court Dela Cruz and Sheriff
Severino, be written in a clear, simple and concise language and in a
systematic manner, otherwise the same will be dismissed.[2]
In the instant case,
complainant alleged that Judge Mendoza is biased in favor of Querubin when he did
not give credence to the latter’s nationality and when he issued a writ of
execution in Civil Case No. 23-569 despite lack of a final and executory
judgment. As regards respondents Clerk
of Court Dela Cruz and Sheriff Severino, we find that there is no allegation as
to their alleged infractions.
We agree with the
observation of the OCA that complainant failed to allege specific acts or to
present proof that would show that respondent judge indeed failed to consider
the nationality of Querubin or how it affected the outcome of Civil Case No.
23-569. Anent the issuance of the writ
of execution, complainant likewise failed to prove the status of Civil Case No.
23-569 or the fact that there was yet no final and executory judgment thereon. As regards respondents clerk of court and sheriff,
there was no averment as to their participation in the alleged infraction. Clearly, complainant failed to comply with
the requirements laid down in Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and
Section 8, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service.
It is likewise
well-settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that
respondents committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant.[3] In the instant case, we find that the charge
of manifest bias and partiality is bereft of factual or legal basis hence, the
same must be dismissed. Bare allegations
of bias and partiality 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 and without fear or
favor. There should be clear and
convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. 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.[4]
Even assuming that
respondent judge erred in failing to consider the nationality of Querubin in
deciding Civil Case No. 23-569, or in issuing the writ of execution without a final
and executory judgment, complainant’s remedy is not through this administrative
complaint. It has been held that the
filing of an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for the
correction of actions of a judge perceived to have gone beyond the norms of
propriety, where a sufficient judicial remedy exists,[5]
thus:
[T]he 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 a 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 actions 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.[6]
Hence, when the
complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and fails to
substantiate his claim, as in this case, the administrative complaint must be
dismissed for lack of merit.[7] This Court will not shirk from its
responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring employees and members of the
bench. At the same time, however, the
Court should not hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve
to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. This Court will not be the instrument to
destroy the reputation of any member of the bench or any of its employees by
pronouncing guilt on mere speculation.[8]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant administrative case
against respondents Judge Bernabe B. Mendoza, Clerk of Court VI Jonathan Floro
D. Dela Cruz and Sheriff IV Rizalde V. Severino, all of the Regional Trial
Court of Roxas, Isabela, Branch 23, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice
[1] Now an Associate
Justice of this Court.
[2] UNIFORM RULES ON
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Rule II, Sec. 8 reads:
Complaint. – A complaint against a civil service official or employee
shall not be given due course unless it is in writing and subscribed and sworn
to by the complainant. However, in cases
initiated by the proper disciplining authority, the complaint need not be under
oath.
No anonymous complaint shall be
entertained unless there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations therein
or supported by documentary or direct evidence, in which case the person
complained of may be required to comment.
The complaint should be written
in a clear, simple and concise language and in a systematic manner as to
apprise the civil servant concerned of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him and to enable him to intelligently prepare his defense or answer.
The complaint shall contain the
following:
a.
full name and address of the complainant;
b.
full name and address of the person complained of as well
as his position and office of employment;
c.
a narration of the relevant and material facts which shows
the acts or omissions allegedly committed by the civil servant;
d.
certified true copies of documentary evidence and
affidavits of his witnesses, if any; and
e.
certification or statement of non-forum shopping.
In the absence of any one of the aforementioned
requirements, the complaint shall be dismissed.
[3] Barcena v.
Gingoyon, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1794,
[4] Elefant v. Inting,
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1938,
[5] Barbers v. Laguio,
Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-00-1568,
[6]
[7] Planas v. Reyes, A.M.
No. RTJ-05-1905,
[8]