EN
BANC
|
GENARO
Complainant, - versus - JUSTICE JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR. of the Thirteenth
[13th] Division, Court of Appeals, Respondent. |
A.M. No. CA-09-47-J[Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-
121-CA-J]
Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February 13, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
By Ist Indorsement[1]
dated January 3, 2008, the Court Administrator referred to this Court’s Clerk
of Court for appropriate action the verified Complaint dated December 27, 2007,[2] with enclosures, of Genaro Santiago III
(complainant) against Court of Appeals Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. (respondent),
for gross ignorance of the law and jurisprudence and gross incompetence in
connection with his rendering of alleged unjust judgment in CA-GR CV No. 84167,
“Genaro C. Santiago III versus Republic
of the Philippines,” which was promulgated on December 3, 2007.[3]
The antecedent facts of the case
follow:
Complainant filed before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) in
By
Decision of
The
case was raffled to Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison (Justice Gonzales-Sison) of
the appellate court’s Thirteenth Division
of which respondent was Chairperson.
Completing the composition of the Division (of three) was Justice Vicente
S.E. Veloso (Justice Veloso).
On
In
view of his dissent, respondent requested on
Justice Veloso soon expressed his
concurrence with respondent’s Dissenting Opinion.[12]
Justice Bersamin expressed his concurrence with the Report of Justice Gonzales–Sison,[13] while
Justice Cruz expressed his concurrence with respondent’s Dissenting Opinion.[14]
Respondent’s
Dissenting Opinion thus became the majority opinion of the Special Division and the Report-opinion of Justice Gonzales-Sison with
which Justice Bersamin concurred became the Dissenting Opinion.
The Decision of the Special Division reversed and set
aside the
On
In the present Complaint, complainant
alleges, inter alia, that:
x x x x
. . . despite the overwhelming evidence of complainant, all corroborated by several government agencies like the original duplicate certificate of OCT No. 56, certified copy of Decree No. 1275, PC Crime Laboratory report, Bureau of Lands record, tracing cloth of survey plan, blue print plan, certified technical description – all approved by the Bureau of Lands, among others and adduced and offered in evidence during trial, Associate Justice Enriquez deliberately twisted the law and existing jurisprudence to grant the appeal, to the extreme prejudice of complainant. For this reason, this administrative charge of GROSS IGNORANCE OF LAW/GROSS INCOMPETENCE is now being filed against respondent Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. No one is above the law.[18] (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
In compliance with this Court’s
Resolution of January 22, 2008,[19] respondent
filed his Comment,[20]
branding the complaint as “a mere nuisance,” a “dirty tactic” in order to
harass him for the purpose of making him inhibit from handling the case the
decision on which was pending consideration. He denies any irregularities attendant to his
arrival at the Decision which, he maintains, has factual and legal basis and is
not contrary to law and jurisprudence.
At any rate, respondent contends that
the administrative complaint was filed prematurely considering that complainant’s
motion for reconsideration of the Decision was pending, and that assuming that
the Decision was indeed unjust and contrary to law, then Justices Cruz and Veloso,
who concurred in his ponencia, should also be charged.
Finally, and at all events,
respondent contends that the administrative complaint is not the proper forum
for the determination of whether the Decision is erroneous or contrary to law
and jurisprudence.
In compliance with the directive of
the Court,[21]
complainant filed a Reply dated 20, 2008 to respondent’s Comment[22] in
which he contends that the cases cited by respondent to support the Decision
are not applicable.
The complaint is bereft of merit.
That cases cited to support a Decision are not
applicable, and the appreciation of evidence and facts is erroneous, do not necessarily
warrant the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge, unless the
Decision is tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty or with deliberate intent
to cause injustice.[23]
The remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge, but to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. An administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonesty…
The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of the arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. Thus, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice, not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable…The failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render a judge administratively liable.[24] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
Assuming arguendo that respondent’s citation of cases in support of the
Decision and his appreciation of the facts and evidence were erroneous, since there
is no showing that the Decision, reconsideration of which was still pending at
the time the present complaint was filed, is tainted with fraud, malice or
dishonesty or was rendered with deliberate intent to cause injustice, the complaint
must be dismissed.
The principle of “judicial immunity” insulates judges, and even Justices of superior
courts, from being held to account criminally, civilly or administratively for
an erroneous decision rendered in good faith.[25] To hold otherwise would render judicial office
untenable. No one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the
process of administering justice could be infallible in his judgment.[26]
. . . A judicial officer cannot be called to account in a civil action for acts done by him in the exercise of his judicial function, however erroneous. In the words of Alzua and Arnalot v. Johnson, “ … it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.” This concept of judicial immunity rests upon consideration of public policy, its purpose being to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. This principle is of universal application and applies to all grades of judicial officers from the highest judge of the nation and to the lowest officer who sits as a court.[27] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It bears particular stress in the
present case that the filing of charges against a single member of a division
of the appellate court is inappropriate. The Decision was not rendered by
respondent in his individual capacity.
It was a product of the consultations and deliberations by the Special Division of five. Consider the
following pronouncement in Bautista v. Abdulwahid:[28]
It
is also imperative to state that the Resolution dated
In fine, while this Court will not
shirk from its responsibility to discipline members of the bench if they err,
it too will not hesitate to shield them if they are charged with unmeritorious charges
that only serve to disrupt, rather than promote, the orderly administration of
justice.
WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
[3]
[4] Decision, rollo, pp. 46-55.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Cortes v. Sandiganbayan, 467 Phil. 155 (2004).
[24]
[25] Tan Tiac Chiong v. Hon. Cosico, 434 Phil. 753, 762 (2002).
[26] Fernandez
v. Verzola, A.M. No. CA-04-40,
[27] Pabalan
v. Guevarra, A.M. No. 333-CJ,
[28] A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-97-CA-J,
[29]