[A.M. No. MTJ-04-1536.
PONCIANO vs. DACARA
SECOND DIVISION
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1536 (Benjamin
R. Ponciano vs. Judge Rogelio L. Dacara, Municipal Trial Court, Buhi, Camarines
This administrative case arose when, in a verified Complaint[1]
dated
The facts which spawned the filing of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant filed an ejectment suit against Virginia L.
Claveria, and thereafter executed an Amicable Settlement dated
Thereafter, the complainant filed Special Civil Action No. 40
entitled Benjamin R. Ponciano v. Virginia L. Claveria for the issuance
of a writ of execution of amicable settlement under Section 417, Republic Act
No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, before the
Municipal Trial Court of Buhi, Camarines
On
The amicable settlement has the force and effect of a final judgment of a court pursuant to Sec. 416 of RA 7160, and considering that the amicable settlement was not nullified by Branch 60, RTC, Iriga City, and the petition for certiorari to annul the amicable settlement subject of this case was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court with more reasons that the amicable settlement must now be enforced.
Since the amicable settlement has attained finality as above-stated, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution, and the issuance thereof is a ministerial duty and compellable by mandamus. ...
The amicable settlement subject of this case, based on a compromise agreement and execution of judgment, is immediately executory and is a matter of right without a need of any notice. ...
One thing more, the respondent had more than sufficiently sought the intervention of the RTC and the Supreme Court aside from this court, thus, respondent had enough days in courts.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion of the petitioner is granted and as prayed for, further proceedings of this case is stopped and let the writ of execution issue.
SO ORDERED.[4]
However, instead of issuing the writ of execution, the respondent
judge granted the notice of appeal filed by Claveria, the defendant therein.[5]
Thereafter, the complainant filed an Ex Parte motion for the
immediate issuance of writ of execution. The respondent judge denied the motion
on the ground that the court could no longer act upon it as the defendant had
already filed an appeal and the same was already approved by the court.[6]
On
For resolution is an Ex-Parte Manifestation and Urgent Motion to
Recall Order dated
This Court agrees with the petitioner that res judicata and
forum shopping applies when it comes to the finality of the amicable settlement
of this case. In fact, the respondent through counsel admitted its validity in
its opposition to the motion by the petitioner to terminate this case.
Nonetheless, the respondent in its opposition raised the issues on: a)
jurisdiction of this court when the petition for the issuance of writ of
execution should have been filed in the Lupon not in this court pursuant to
Article 417 of RA 7160; and b) violation of due process when the two witnesses of the respondent were not
allowed to testify anymore. These issues although resolved by this court in
favor of the petitioner are valid subjects of review by an appellate court,
hence, the notice of appeal was given due course.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, in the higher interest of justice,
the above-mentioned motion is denied and to avoid further delay, let the entire
records of this case be forwarded to the Regional Trial Court, City of
SO ORDERED.[7]
The complainant contended that the respondent committed grave abuse of authority when he granted the notice of appeal without giving the complainant the opportunity to oppose the appeal. According to the complainant, the respondent contradicted his earlier order granting the motion for writ of execution when he approved the notice of appeal. Furthermore, the respondent committed gross ignorance of the law in failing to apply the principle of res judicata in the subject case. In view of this Court’s decision dismissing Claveria’s petition with finality, the respondent should not have approved the notice of appeal, because by doing so, he allowed the latter to litigate the same matter again in the same court (RTC, Iriga City), a case involving the same parties, subject matter and virtually the same issues as in Civil Case No. IR-3246. The complainant stressed that this Court had already resolved the latter case with finality.
In his Comment, the respondent denied the allegations against him and alleged that he did not issue the Writ of Execution because a Notice of Appeal was already perfected by the defendant Claveria. The question of the jurisdiction of the MTC and on the alleged violation of due process are, according to the respondent, valid issues for review on appeal. Contrary to the complainant’s belief, the reason why the appeal was given due course was to avoid further delay in the resolution of the case. Moreover, the complainant’s ex parte motion for immediate issuance of writ of execution, as well as the ex parte motion to recall the Order dated August 19, 2003 was entertained by the respondent, which constitutes sufficient proof that there was no haste in the proceedings. The respondent further alleged that if, indeed, the complainant believed that he committed grave abuse of discretion, the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari, and not an administrative case. At most, the respondent could have only committed an error of judgment which is correctible by appeal or other judicial process.[8]
In its Report dated
We agree.
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.[9] The remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction.[10] Furthermore, a judge’s failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable.[11]
The acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative - for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. 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.[12]
The settled-rule is that the disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. An inquiry into their civil, criminal and/or administrative liability may be made only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with finality.[13]
The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[14]
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Rogelio L. Dacara is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-8.
[2] Entitled Virginia L. Claveria v. Benjamin R. Ponciano.
[3] Entitled Virginia L Claveria v. Judge Josue F. Ernacio.
[4] Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[5] Annex “D.”
[6] Annex “E.”
[7] Annex “F,” Rollo, p. 20.
[8] Rollo, pp. 60-61.
[9]
Spouses Arturo and Josefina de Guzman
v. Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1736,
[10]
Edgardo D. Balsamo v. Judge Pedro L.
Suan, A.M. No RTJ-01-1656,
[11] Mina v. Judge Gatdula, 376 SCRA 1 (2002).
[12]
Julie C. Pitney v. Judge Zeus C.
Abrogar, etc., A.M. No.
RTJ-03-1748,
[13] Rollo, p. 67.
[14]
Leonides T. Cortes v. Sandiganbayan
Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, et al., A.M. No. SB-04-11-J,