SECOND DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 18-4882-RTJ. September 2, 2020.]
ERNESTO CALLENA, JR., complainant, vs. HON. CORPUS B. ALZATE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 2, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BANGUED, ABRA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 02 September 2020 which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 18-4882-RTJ (Ernesto Callena, Jr. v. Hon. Corpus B. Alzate, Presiding Judge, Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Bangued, Abra). — The present administrative case arose from a Verified Complaint 1 filed by Ernesto Callena, Jr. against Judge Corpus B. Alzate of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangued, Abra, Branch 2, for partiality and serious misconduct in denying a non-existent petition for bail in the case docketed as Criminal Case No. 2015-064, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Callena, Jr." for Rape in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
The Facts
Four (4) criminal cases were filed against complainant Ernesto Callena, Jr. (Callena, Jr.) before the RTC of Bangued, Abra, Branch 2, presided by respondent Judge Corpus B. Alzate (Judge Alzate). The criminal cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2015-062, 2015-063, 2015-064, and 2015-065. Due to alleged bias and partiality, Callena, Jr. filed an administrative case against Judge Alzate before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) docketed as OCA IPI No. 15-4479-RTJ. In the said case, the Court granted the change of venue of the three cases to the RTC of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 22, namely: (1) Criminal Case Nos. 2015-062, (2) 2015-063, and (3) 2015-065. The transfer of Criminal Case No. 2015-064 was overlooked due to a clerical error, but was later on rectified by the Court on January 22, 2018, where the Court ordered the transfer of the case to the RTC of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 22. 2
However, prior to the order of transfer of Criminal Case No. 2015-064, Judge Alzate issued an Order 3 dated December 7, 2016 denying a petition for bail in the said case. Herein, Callena, Jr. alleged that he was not yet arraigned in Criminal Case No. 2015-064 and the denial for petition for bail is non-existent.
In his Comment, 4 Judge Alzate admitted to have inadvertently overlooked the fact that Callena, Jr. was not yet arraigned in Criminal Case No. 2015-064. Judge Alzate clarified that Criminal Case No. 2015-064 was originally raffled to RTC of Bangued, Abra, Branch 1, and was later consolidated with three (3) other criminal cases docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2015-062, 2015-063, and 2015-065 on June 3, 2015. Prior to the consolidation of the four (4) cases, there was already a pending incident of petition for bail before RTC, Branch 2 pertaining to the three (3) cases. However, during the October 11, 2016 trial, the prosecution presented evidence to oppose Callena, Jr.'s petition for bail on all four (4) cases. 5 The active participation of Callena, Jr. in the said proceedings, without any objection, led Judge Alzate to believe that Criminal Case No. 2015-064 was already included in the petition for bail.
Judge Alzate denied being biased against Callena, Jr. and argued that an unfavorable resolution to the accused does not mean that the judge who issued it is biased against him.
The OCR's Recommendation
After evaluating the facts, the OCA opined that there is no sufficient basis to support the allegation of bad faith and bias or impartiality on the part of Judge Alzate. Moreover, the complaint is essentially judicial in nature. The OCA's recommendation reads as follows:
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that the instant administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Corpus B. Alzate, Branch 2, RTC, Bangued, Abra, be DISMISSED for lack of merit and for being judicial in nature. 6
The Court's Ruling
The recommendation of the OCA is well-taken.
To be liable for serious misconduct, there must be reliable evidence showing that the act of the judge was done in manifest violation of the law or blatant disregard of established rules. Serious Misconduct has been explained as:
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former. 7
A judicious review of the records reveals that there is no sufficient evidence to prove serious misconduct and bias or partiality on the part of Judge Alzate.
In the present case, Judge Alzate was able to sufficiently show that the assailed Order denying the petition for bail in Criminal Case No. 2015-064 was done inadvertently.
As the factual milieu of the case would show, when the prosecution presented evidence to oppose the petition for bail, it presented evidence for all four (4) cases including Criminal Case No. 2015-064. Callena, Jr. and his counsel actively participated in the proceedings and failed to interject their objection to the lack of arraignment on Criminal Case No. 2015-064. Thus, when the three (3) other cases were transferred to another court, the Court concurs with the OCA that the resolution of the petition for bail on Criminal Case No. 2015-064 was an honest mistake on the part of Judge Alzate.
It bears to stress that not all errors or mistakes committed by a judge in the performance of his or her official duties renders him or her administratively liable. 8 It could be said that Judge Alzate was remiss in his duties but such was not motivated by bad faith, malice or deliberate intent to do an injustice. As such, there is no reason to hold Judge Alzate administratively liable for serious misconduct.
Furthermore, the facts in the present case do not support the allegations of bias or partiality against Judge Alzate. As was explained in Flores v. Abesamis, 9 assuming that the judge acted with bias or prejudice, the aggrieved party has judicial remedies to obtain relief, which precludes him or her from resorting to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings against the judge. The law provides sufficient judicial remedies to the party to seek relief from errors or irregularities committed by the trial court.
Indeed, the present case is judicial in character and Callena, Jr. can seek judicial relief before the RTC of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 22, where the subject Criminal Case No. 2015-064 has been transferred.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint filed by Ernesto Callena, Jr. against respondent Judge Corpus B. Alzate is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-5.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id. at 7-12.
4.Id. at 21-29.
5.Id. at 30-31.
6.Id. at 99.
7.Maddela III v. Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559, August 14, 2019, citing Office of the Ombudsman v. De Zosa, 751 Phil. 293 (2015).
8.Tallado v. Racoma, A.M. No. RTJ-18-2536, October 10, 2018.
9. 341 Phil. 299 (1997).