FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 19-4989-RTJ. May 5, 2021.]
QUIRINO D. ABREA, complainant,vs. HON. AMBROSIO B. DE LUNA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 51, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 5, 2021 which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 19-4989-RTJ (Quirino D. Abrea, Complainant,v. Hon. Ambrosio B. De Luna, Presiding Judge, Branch 51, Regional Trial Court [RTC], Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Respondent). — In his Hablang Salaysay1 dated 30 September 2019, complainant Quirino D. Abrea (Abrea) charged respondent Judge Ambrosio B. De Luna (Judge De Luna), Presiding Judge of Branch 51, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, with violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code 2 and gross ignorance of the law in connection with Criminal Case No. 31860 entitled People of the Philippines v. Quirino Abrea and Olivia Abrea for violation of Section 77, 3 Presidential Decree No. (PD) 705 4 as amended by PD 1559 and Republic Act No. (RA) 7161.
The said Criminal Case was raffled to Judge De Luna who, after trial on the merits, rendered a Decision 5 dated 28 May 2019, finding Abrea and his wife (Spouses Abrea) guilty of the crime charged for cutting and possessing without permit or license from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), twenty-three (23) pieces of bakawan timber. 6 Spouses Abrea filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 11 July 2019. 7 Pending resolution thereof, or on 18 September 2019, 8 spouses Abrea moved to inhibit Judge De Luna, alleging that the latter was biased in favor of the prosecution. Two (2) weeks later, Abrea likewise filed the present administrative complaint dated 30 September 2019 before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) claiming the same allegations of prejudice purportedly committed by Judge De Luna.
In his Comment 9 dated 15 October 2019, Judge De Luna asserted that Spouses Abrea was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against them based on evidence. Section 77 of PD 705, as amended, punishes the mere possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations. Judge De Luna pointed out that as a rule, any error committed by a judge in rendering decision is not the proper subject of an administrative complaint. This, considering that judicial remedies are still available to the aggrieved parties, Spouses Abrea. Further, Judge De Luna surmised that the instant administrative complaint is a mere ploy of Abrea to threaten and harass him, as well as the other judges who have tried and/or are currently trying criminal cases involving Abrea lodged before various branches of the RTC in Puerto Princesa City.
Judge De Luna also submitted his Supplemental Comment and Manifestation 10 dated 25 November 2019, attaching thereto pieces of documentary evidence presented in trial supporting the finding of guilt against Spouses Abrea. He also submitted documents relating to the other criminal cases filed against Abrea in different RTC branches in Puerto Princesa City.
Evaluation and Recommendation of the OCA
The OCA recommended the dismissal of the instant complaint for lack of merit. It found that Abrea failed to establish that the judgment was patently contrary to law or unsupported by evidence. More importantly, Abrea cannot attack the correctness of Judge De Luna's Decision which was rendered in the exercise of his judicial prerogative. Abrea could only challenge the same by availing of the judicial remedies allowed by the Rules of Court.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the evaluation and recommendation of the OCA well-taken.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a respondent judge should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. Hence, when the complainant fails to substantiate a claim of corruption and bribery, relying merely on conjectures and suppositions, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit, 11 as in this case.
More importantly, Abrea, along with his wife, had judicial remedies available to them to assail the judgment of conviction rendered by Judge De Luna. In fact, they even filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for inhibition, yet, they still proceeded to pursue an administrative case against Judge De Luna. To Our mind, this amounts to an abuse of court processes intended to influence, threaten or harass Judge De Luna. This, considering that there is no showing the said motions had already been acted upon. And even if the motions had already been resolved, Abrea could still elevate their case before the appellate courts. A complainant who resorts to administrative disciplinary action, even before the judicial remedies are settled, in effect, abuses court processes. 12
It is settled that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available. The acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, no matter how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith. It is a matter of public policy that in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. For a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he or she renders. 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 or her judgment. 13
Finally, when an administrative charge against a judge or any personnel of the court has no basis whatsoever, this Court will not hesitate to protect him against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes. We will not shirk from our responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees and officials of the Judiciary, but neither shall we hesitate to shield the same officials or employees from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. 14
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Judge Ambrosio B. De Luna is hereby DISMISSED.
The "Hablang-Salaysay" dated September 30, 2019 (with enclosures) of Quirino D. Abrea charging Presiding Judge Ambrosio B. De Luna with violation of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code (knowingly rendering an unjust and unlawful judgment) and gross ignorance of the law relative to Criminal Case No. 31860 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Quirino D. Abrea and Olivia L. Abrea"; the comment (with enclosures) of Presiding Judge Ambrosio B. De Luna on the complaint; and the supplemental comment and manifestation (with enclosures) of Presiding Judge Ambrosio B. De Luna; and the Report dated December 3, 2020 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are all NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-12.
2. Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
3. SECTION 77. Unlawful Possession of Implements and Devices Used by Forest Officers. — Imprisonment for a period of not less than (2) nor more than four (4) years and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), nor more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) in addition to the confiscation of such implements and devices, and the automatic cancellation of the license agreement, lease, license or permit, if the offender is a holder thereof, shall be imposed upon any person who shall, without authority from the Director or his authorized representative, make, manufacture, or has in his possession any government marking, hatchet or other marking implement, or any marker, poster, or other devices officially used by officers of the Bureau for the marking or identification of timber or other products, or any duplicate, counterfeit, or imitation thereof, or make or apply a government mark on timber or any other forest products by means of any authentic or counterfeit device, or alter, deface, or remove government marks or signs, from trees, logs, stumps, firewoods or other forest products, or destroy, deface, remove or disfigure any such mark, sign, poster or warning notices set by the Bureau to designate the boundaries of cutting areas, municipal or city forest or pasture, classified timber land, forest reserve, and areas under the national park system or to make any false mark or imitation of any mark or sign herein indicated; Provided, That if the offender is a corporation, partnership or association, the officers and directors thereof shall be liable.
4.Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines.
5.Rollo, pp. 24-27; penned by Presiding Judge Ambrosio B. De Luna.
6. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Quirino Abrea and Olivia Abrea GUILTY of the charge of violation of Section 77 of PD 705 and sentences him [sic] to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum, as minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS, ELEVEN (11) MONTHS and TEN (10) DAYS of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
7.Rollo, pp. 28-30.
8.Id. at 31-34.
9.Id. at 38-42.
10.Id. at 69-71.
11.Atty. Fernandez v. Court of Appeals Associate Justices Verzola et al., 480 Phil. 1 (2004); A.M. No. CA-04-40, 13 August 2004 [Per J. Callejo, Sr.].
12.Salcedo v. Caguioa, 467 Phil. 20 (2004); A.M. No. MTJ-00-1328, 11 February 2004 [Per J. Austria-Martinez].
13.Trasmonte v. Codilla, Jr., A.C. No. 8204 (Notice), 28 November 2019.
14.Tan v. Adre, 490 Phil. 555 (2005); A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898, 31 January 2005 [Per J. Chico-Nazario].