FIRST DIVISION
ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2008
Complainant, [OCA-IPI
No. 05-2229-RTJ]
Present:
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
JUDGE ANTONIO N. EUGENIO,
JR., Regional Trial Court, Promulgated:
Branch 24,
Respondent. July 17, 2006
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On
Complainant alleges that he is one of the defendants in Civil Case No.
05-112229 entitled Auxencio Penaranda, in his own behalf, and Philippine
Veterans Bank, represented by Auxencio Penaranda in his capacity as a Minority
Stockholder in this Intra-corporate Derivative Suit v. Atty. Romeo G. Roxas,
Col. Emmanuel De Ocampo, Atty. Peregrino Andres, Atty. Federico Manalo and the
Board of Directors of Philippine Veterans Bank for “Disqualification of
Stockholder, Annulment of Transfer of Shares; Cancellation of Subscription;
Reconveyance and/or Restitution of Issued Shares and dividends; Damages and
Injunction, with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and TRO.”
Atty. Roxas charges respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law and
abuse of authority when he took cognizance of the said civil case and granted
the prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order despite the fact
that venue was improperly laid. He
claims that the venue of the case lies with the courts of
In his Comment, respondent judge states that he properly took cognizance
of the civil case and that the courts of the City of Manila have authority to
hear and determine the allegations thereof, citing Section 1 of Republic Act
No. 3518, the Act creating the Philippine Veterans Bank which established the
principal domicile and place of business of the bank in the City of Manila. He finds it immaterial and irrelevant that
the present principal place of business of the bank is in
As regards complainant’s allegation that he was not effectively served
with summons, the record shows that the hearing on
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its Report dated
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Respondent judge’s alleged administrative liability hinges on the
resolution of the issue of whether venue was improperly laid. This is a question of law and complainant’s
remedy is to question the same in an appropriate judicial proceeding, not
through an administrative case. It is
axiomatic, as this Court has repeatedly stressed, that an administrative
complaint 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, or an appeal.
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 renders, assuming 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 so gross, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith that
administrative sanctions may be imposed against the erring judge.[1]
The filing of the instant administrative case against respondent judge is
precipitate and premature. We note that
simultaneous with the filing of this administrative complaint, an Urgent Motion
to Dismiss (With Opposition to the Application of Preliminary Injunction with
Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order) was filed by complainant. An administrative complaint against a judge
cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties
aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment.
Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to
judicial review where such review is available to aggrieved parties and the
same has not yet been resolved with finality.
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 respondent judge is administratively liable.[2]
Finally, to merit disciplinary action, the error or mistake committed by
a judge should be patent, gross, malicious, deliberate, or done in bad
faith. In the instant case, there is no
allegation that the alleged error or mistake was deliberately committed by
respondent judge with malice or bad faith.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
instant administrative complaint 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