FIRST DIVISION
RAMON M. CALO, A.M.
No. RTJ-06-1996
Complainant, [OCA-IPI
No. 05-2285-RTJ]
Present:
- versus - Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson),
Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL,
JR., Regional Trial Court, Promulgated:
Branch 4, Butuan City,
Respondent. July
25, 2006
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Complainant Ramon M. Calo charges respondent Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr.
of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch 4, with serious misconduct,
gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion and for knowingly
rendering an unjust interlocutory order relative to Civil Case No. 1242
entitled Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. (NIASSI)
v. Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).
Complainant, who represents NIASSI in the said case, alleges that on
March 18, 2005, respondent issued a Resolution[1] granting NIASSI’s prayer
for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. PPA filed a Motion for Reconsideration[2] which was initially set
for hearing on April 1, 2005 but was moved to March 31, 2005. However, the hearing on said date was
cancelled, instead, respondent conducted the hearing on April 1, 2005 as
originally scheduled and made it on record that NIASSI’s counsels were absent in
the said hearing.[3]
On April 11, 2005, respondent issued a resolution[4] dissolving the Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction effective immediately without requiring PPA to post a counter
bond. Complainant contends that respondent’s
act of precipitately dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction on doubtful
grounds and without requiring PPA to post a counter bond makes him guilty of gross
ignorance of the law and procedures, knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory
order, and serious misconduct.
Complainant alleges that respondent had succumbed to undue influence and
pressure from politicians who were instrumental in his appointment to the bench
and who are now interested in the stevedoring business in the Port of Nasipit.
In his Comment,[5] respondent denies that he showed bias and
partiality in favor of PPA. He explains
that the hearing of PPA’s Motion for Reconsideration scheduled on March 31,
2005 was cancelled because the lawyers of NIASSI were not available. Likewise, no hearing was conducted on April
1, 2005. Instead, he verbally informed
the lawyers of PPA who were then present of the resetting of the hearing on
April 6, 2005. It was actually on April
6, 2005 when the Motion for Reconsideration of PPA was heard; that there is no
truth to the allegation that the scheduling was intended for the benefit of PPA.
Respondent also contends that the lifting of the writ was not done in bad
faith, nor was it with intent to cause damage to NIASSI. He asserts that under Section 6, Rule 58 of
the Rules of Court, a judge can validly dissolve the writ if there is a valid
ground to do so. After reviewing PPA’s
Motion for Reconsideration, he noted that the Holdover Authority/Permit of NIASSI
would expire on April 13, 2005, afterwhich there would be no more basis for the
continued enforcement of the writ. He
did not require PPA to post a counter bond due to the permit’s expiration.
In the meantime, NIASSI, through complainant, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, and a Motion for the Voluntary Inhibition of respondent.
In its Report,[6] the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) found the complaint to be bereft of merit, thus:
A circumspect scrutiny of the records at hand fails to
support the allegations in the complaint.
The acts of respondent pertain to his judicial functions and, as such,
are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud,
dishonesty, corruption or bad faith, which complainant has not proven nor
shown. Besides, complainant,
representing NIASSI, had availed of the judicial remedy of certiorari assailing
the 11 April 2005 Order of respondent wherein complainant raised substantially
the same issues subject of the instant administrative complaint.
Anent the 1 April 2005 Order resetting the hearing to
6 April 2005, such does state that the setting that day was for the hearing on
the Manifestation and Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration filed by PPA. However, it is clear that there was no set
hearing that day, as admitted by respondent in his comment, for he merely met
the lawyers of PPA and reset the hearing.
Thus, the 1 April 2005 Order stating the set hearing that day was
certainly misleading or not entirely true since the 1 April 2005 hearing was
cancelled and moved to 31 March 2005, which was subsequently moved to 6 April
2005, as originally requested by PPA in the motion for reconsideration. Respondent must be more circumspect in
issuing orders that must reflect the actual facts it represents to obviate
engendering views of partiality among party litigants, particularly complainant
in the instant case who was not logically present. Nevertheless, NIASSI and complainant’s rights
were not prejudiced since a hearing was indeed conducted on PPA’s motion for reconsideration
on 6 April 2005.[7]
The OCA recommends that respondent be sternly warned to be more circumspect in issuing orders which must truly reflect the actual facts it represents and for the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint for lack of merit.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of
the OCA.
The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is discretionary on the part of the trial court. The matter is judicial in nature, as such,
the party’s remedy if prejudiced by the orders of a judge given in the course
of a trial, is the proper reviewing court, and not with the OCA by means of an
administrative complaint. 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. 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. 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.[8]
In the present
case, the records are bereft of evidence showing bad faith, fraud, dishonesty,
and corruption of the respondent judge. Thus,
it is improper for complainant to file an administrative complaint to challenge
the exercise of respondent’s judicial discretion. Besides,
NIASSI has filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals based on the same set of acts allegedly committed by
respondent which are likewise being assailed in the instant administrative
complaint. As such, any grave abuse of
discretion, gross ignorance of the law, or serious misconduct allegedly
committed by respondent judge should be discussed and resolved in the said
petition for certiorari.
Likewise, there
exists no evidence as to the alleged bias and partiality of respondent towards
PPA. As held in Mamerto Maniquiz
Foundation, Inc. v. Pizarro:[9]
In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the
onus of establishing, by substantial evidence, the averments of his
complaint. Notatu dignum is the presumption of regularity in the
performance of a judge’s functions, hence bias, prejudice and even undue
interest cannot be presumed, specially weighed against a judge’s sacred
allegation under oath of office to administer justice without respect to any
person and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. In a long line of
cases decided by this Court, it was held that bare allegations of bias 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. In Sinnott v.
Barte, it was further held, mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not
enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge
of bias and partiality. x x x
WHEREFORE, the
instant administrative complaint filed against respondent Judge Godofredo B.
Abul, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch 4, is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Respondent, however, is STERNLY WARNED to be more circumspect in issuing orders which must
truly reflect the actual facts they represent to obviate engendering views of
partiality among litigants.
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