FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 19-3072-MTJ. July 14, 2021.]
JOSELITO K. ECHAVEZ, complainant, vs.HON. GRACE MARIA THERESA BAMBI A. DELOS REYES-JURADO, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 30, MANILA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 19-3072-MTJ — (JOSELITO K. ECHAVEZ, complainant v. HON. GRACE MARIA THERESA BAMBI A. DELOS REYES-JURADO, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 30, Manila, respondent). — The present Motion for Reconsideration and Explanation 1 is filed by herein complainant, Joselito Echavez (Echavez), seeking to set aside the Resolution 2 dated October 12, 2020 which dismissed the administrative complaint he filed against herein respondent Hon. Judge Grace Maria Theresa Bambi A. Delos Reyes-Jurado (respondent).
Antecedents
The present administrative case stemmed from the criminal case filed against Echavez, for slight physical injuries. The criminal case was initially raffled to Branch 25, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Manila. During his arraignment, Echavez, assisted by a Public Attorney's Office counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges. 3
The criminal case was referred to mediation but parties did not arrive on an amicable settlement. The case was then returned to the court where it was re-raffled to Branch 14, MeTC Manila. 4 During the preliminary conference, Echavez manifested that he will secure the services of his own counsel and moved that he be given time to do so. It was granted, however, his exhibit was not marked at that time. 5
On September 18, 2017, Echavez by himself moved to inhibit then Honorable Judge Carolina J. Esguerra of Branch 14 of the MeTC of Manila. The motion was granted and the case was then re-raffled to Branch 3 of the MeTC of Manila. 6
Branch 3 of the MeTC of Manila conducted the pre-trial conference on November 29, 2017. Upon agreement of the parties, there being no admission or stipulation of facts entered into by them, the pre-trial was terminated. 7
Thereafter, the trial for the criminal case ensued and the prosecution presented the testimonies of the private complainant Shirly Alo and Marivel Echavez. Echavez was assisted by his own counsel who conducted the cross-examination on the witnesses presented by the prosecution. The prosecution completed its presentation of its witnesses and on June 7, 2018, they filed their Formal Offer of Evidence. 8
On the other hand, Echavez, by himself filed a Manifestation with Notice of Termination of the legal services of his counsel, Atty. Michael Cabugoy due to loss of trust and confidence and unprofessionalism. On June 8, 2018, Echavez also filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit and Re-Raffle the Above-Entitled Case praying to inhibit Judge Roland Dennis G. Molina of Branch 3, MeTC of Manila. The motion was granted and case was re-raffled to Branch 7, MeTC of Manila. 9
On August 28, 2018, Echavez was scheduled to present his defense, however, he appeared without a counsel. Considering that the defense has yet to file its Comment/Opposition to the prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence, the initial presentation of defense was reset on October 28, 2018. Echavez manifested that he intends to seek the services of his new counsel and the new counsel will be ready to appear on the next hearing for trial. 10
On August 29, 2018, Echavez by himself filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit and Re-Raffle the Above-Titled Case which prayed for the inhibition of the Hon. Judge Carissa Anne Manook-Frondozo of Branch 7, MeTC of Manila which was granted in the Order dated September 28, 2018. The case was then re-raffled to Branch 11, MeTC and was set for hearing on November 20, 2018. 11 AIDSTE
On September 11, 2018, Echavez through counsel, Atty. Felecito Cordero, filed his Comment/Objection to the prosecution's formal offer of evidence. 12
On November 14, 2018, Echavez by himself filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve Pending Motions with appended Motion for Postponement. On a later date, Echavez by himself filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve Pending Motion with appended Clarification. The prosecution then filed its Comment and/or Opposition to the aforementioned motions. Thus, hearings were scheduled. 13
On December 20, 2018, Echavez filed a Manifestation dated December 19, 2018. On January 11, 2019, Echavez filed a Motion for Clarification of even date. On January 23, 2019, another Manifestation was filed. 14
In the Order dated February 12, 2019, Hon. Acting Presiding Judge Michelle C. Manaig-Calumpong of Branch 11, MeTC, Manila, resolved the motions filed by Echavez. In the said Order, Echavez was directed to confer with his counsel in order to clarify what "pending motions" Echavez was referring in his urgent motions for resolution. The court further orders the clarification regarding the marking of the evidence. It was also noted by the court that the motions were filed by Echavez himself and thus, orders his counsel to manifest conformity to these motions. 15
On February 28, 2019, Echavez by himself filed a Manifestation (Pending Motion to Reprimand complainant counsel). On the same date, Echavez's counsel filed a Withdrawal of Appearance. Manifestations were thereafter filed by both the prosecution and Echavez. 16
In an Order 17 dated March 20, 2019, Judge Jose I. Cordero, Jr. (Judge Cordero) of Branch 11, MeTC of Manila finally resolved the pending incidents of the criminal case. The dispositive portion of the order reads:
WHEREFORE, in order to thoroughly and intelligently resolve the pertinent factual and legal issues, this Court resolves to admit Exhibits A to F and their sub markings, subject to the Court's appreciation of their weight and probative value.
Set hearing on March 22, 2019 at 8:30 am as previously scheduled. Add settings on April 16, 2019 and April 23, 2019 both at 1:30 pm (presentation of defense evidence).
The Withdrawal of Appearance of Atty. Felecito C. Cordero is noted. Accused Joselito Echavez is directed to secure the services of a new counsel and the latter to make the necessary Entry of Appearance.
SO ORDERED. 18
The hearing was thereafter scheduled but in view of the absence of the public prosecutor and considering that Echavez has not secured himself of a counsel the hearing was reset to April 16 and 23, 2019. 19
On March 26, 2019, Echavez filed a Manifestation (to File Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court). On April 11, 2019, the Court received a Petition for Certiorari (Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court) filed by Echavez himself with the Supreme Court. 20
On April 14, 2019, Echavez again by himself filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit and Re-Raffle the Above-Entitled Case which prayed for the inhibition of Judge Cordero of Branch 11, MeTC, Manila. 21
The April 16, 2019 hearing was reset to May 16, 2019 as Echavez has not yet secured the services of a counsel. On April 24, 2019, Judge Cordero voluntarily inhibited himself from the case. 22
The case was then re-raffled to Branch 29, MeTC Manila and was set for the initial presentation of defense evidence on May 23, 2019. Echavez again, on May 16, 2019, filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit and Re-Raffle the Above-Entitled Case which prayed to inhibit Hon. Judge Richelle Lou S. Boling-Sanchez (Judge Boling-Sanchez) of Branch 29, MeTC Manila. 23
On the scheduled presentation of defense evidence, Echavez appeared without counsel thus hearing was reset to July 25, 2019. 24
In the Order dated June 6, 2019, Judge Boling-Sanchez of Branch 29, MeTC Manila granted the motion for inhibition and voluntarily inhibited herself from further proceeding with the case. The case was then re-raffled to Branch 30, MeTC, Manila and was scheduled for hearing on July 22, 2019. 25
On July 4, 2019, Echavez by himself filed a Manifestation with Motion (to Re-Raffle the Above-Entitled Case) which prayed the inhibition of herein respondent. 26
On July 22, 2019, Echavez appeared before Branch 30 of MeTC Manila without counsel. Since the counsel for the prosecution was not present in Court, the hearing was reset to September 2, 2019. 27
On July 25, 2019, Echavez requested the court for a copy of the audio recording of the hearing but the same was denied for lack of basis. 28
On July 30, 2019, respondent denied Echavez's motion for the inhibition and set the case for initial presentation of defense on September 2, 2019. On August 5, 2019, Echavez filed a Manifestation again praying for the inhibition of respondent. On August 7, 2019, Echavez by himself filed a Motion for Clarification and then a Motion for Reconsideration of the order dated July 30, 2019. 29 Both motions were denied thru the Omnibus Order dated August 16, 2019 for being pro forma motions. 30 Thereafter, Echavez by himself filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration (for Omnibus Order) which was denied by the court for utter lack of merit in the Order dated September 10, 2019. 31
On August 8, 2019, Echavez filed the instant case before the Supreme Court-Office of the Court of Administrator against respondent for Grave Abuse of Discretion, Violation of Judicial Conduct and Code of Professional Responsibility. 32 Echavez alleged that the Order dated June 21, 2019 and Order July 30, 2019 issued by respondent were both misleading and "falsification of facts." 33 Echavez also questioned the denial by respondent of his motion for inhibition. Respondent also prohibited Echavez to make a reply to the "misleading and malicious" comment of the private prosecutor. Echavez also claim that the Order dated March 20, 2019 resolving pending motions is "absolute false" and that respondent declared that Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is "prohibited." 34
Meanwhile, the September 2, 2019 hearing for the initial presentation of defense evidence pushed through, however, Echavez appeared without counsel. Echavez then moved to reset the hearing and manifested that he will engage the services of his own counsel. Prosecution posed their objection. The trial court granted the resetting but with warning that failure of Echavez to present his evidence on the next hearing will be considered a waiver of his right to do so. The hearing was reset on October 11, 2019. 35
On October 7, 2019, Echavez through counsel filed a Motion for Clarification (with Entry of Appearance). In the Order dated October 10, 2019, the trial court denied the said motion for utter lack of merit and the same was stricken out from the records of the case pursuant to Section 12, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. 36
On October 11, 2019, during the hearing for the initial presentation of defense evidence, Echavez appeared with his counsel Atty. Juan Cabredo IV (Atty. Cabredo). The defense intended to present the testimony of Echavez as witness without using any Judicial Affidavit in violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule and Revised Rule of Summary Procedure. The prosecution, through counsel, posed their strong objection thereto. Atty. Cabredo then repeatedly moved for the resetting of the hearing. However, the court did not allow the resetting in view of the warning previously given to the defense, thus the trial court declared Echavez to have waived his right to present his evidence. 37 In the Order dated October 11, 2019, the trial court also stated that it is mindful of the fact that the presentation of defense evidence has been scheduled as early as March 2019 by the previous judge. However, Echavez had been moving for the inhibition of the judges who were handling the case and respondent was already the seventh (7th) judge to take the criminal case. The case was then submitted for decision. 38
On November 8, 2019, the trial court thru respondent found Echavez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of slight physical injuries. Echavez was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 15 days of arresto menor. Echavez was likewise ordered to pay the private complainant moral damages amounting to P5,000.00 and temperate damages amounting to P5,000.00. 39 EcTCAD
Ruling of the Court on the Administrative Complaint
The Office of the Court Administrator also noted that Echavez similarly filed an administrative complaint against Judge Boling-Sanchez of Branch 29, MeTC Manila docketed as OCA-IPI No. 19-3052-MTJ which issues stems from the same criminal case against Echavez. 40
On October 12, 2020, this Court dismissed the instant administrative complaint for lack of merit. 41 Echavez failed to present proof with regard to his claim that respondent Judge prohibited him "to make pleading (or reply)" to the comment of Atty. Marilyn Joyas (private prosecutor). Also, he failed to substantiate his claim that the March 20, 2019 Order did not in fact resolve the pending motions he sought to have resolved. This Court further held that assuming the acts complained of were erroneous, Echavez's allegations refer to respondent's exercise of her judicial discretion which will not merit administrative sanctions where other judicial remedies are available. 42
However, this Court also finds the instant case unfounded and baseless. Thus, pursuant to A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC, Echavez was directed to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. 43
Hence, the present motion for reconsideration with explanation by Echavez.
Issues
• Whether or not respondent is guilty of the administrative infractions complained of and thus the instant case should be considered; and
• Whether or not Echavez should be held in contempt of court.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is bereft of merit.
Echavez insisted that respondent committed dishonesty in the resolution of his criminal case. However, after careful review of what transpired during the trial/hearing of Echavez's criminal case which resulted to the filing of the present administrative case, We do not find any irregularity or dishonesty committed by respondent judge.
The issues being raised by Echavez were already resolved by previous motions issued by previous judges who handled the case. In fact, the statement quoted by Echavez, which he claims to be as conflicting statement of herein respondent, weren't even respondent's statement but was merely quoted by respondent judge from the Order dated March 20, 2019 issued by Judge Cordero, which order resolved the issue on the CCTV footage and the alleged falsification of pleadings of Echavez. 44 Thus, there was no clear conflicting statements, "false and malicious" as Echavez described, was incurred by respondent in her orders.
With regard to the disallowance made by respondent against Echavez to present his defense, it must be noted that Echavez was priorly warned by respondent of the consequence if he would not be able to present on the next hearing scheduled. Yet Echavez, on the day of his presentation, still did not prepare and plans to delay the procedure once more. With a simple case, which is in fact summary in nature, pending before the court since 2017, respondent's action of disallowance is justified. Further, assuming respondent's action was erroneous, such would not merit administrative sanctions since there are other judicial remedies available, like appeal of the case. Thus, in the case of Tamondong v. Pasal, 45 this Court held that:
x x x [A]n 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. 46
The court further held in Flores v. Abesamis, 47 that:
As everyone knows, the law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities being committed by a Trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e., error in appreciation or admission of evidence, or in construction or application of procedural or substantive law or legal principle) include a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition of a judgment or final order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary remedies against error or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character (i.e., whimsical, capricious, despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are inter alia the special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a petition for change of venue, as the case may be.
Now[,] the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil[,] or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed. 48
We also find Echavez's explanation unsatisfactory. At the outset, he alleged that the administrative case was filed to seek justice and truth for the "continuous injustice and corrupt practices made by Judges of Manila Regional Trial Court" 49 where respondent is a MeTC Judge. Further, this Court cannot turn a blind eye on the maneuverings done by Echavez on his criminal case. Echavez filed numerous motions which in effect took the resolution of his criminal case longer than it should. A pattern can be seen in the case at bar that Echavez would file a motion for inhibition and re-raffle of the case whenever the case was set already for the presentation of defense. Clearly, Echavez abused the court's leniency in allowing his case to be re-raffled. When respondent denied his motion for inhibition and for the case to be re-raffled, he filed an administrative case against the respondent.
However, despite the present case being arbitrary and baseless, We do not find Echavez's action contemptuous. It must be noted that Echavez filed the dilatory motions by himself, without assistance of counsel. Even though not being a lawyer is not a defense in a contempt case, 50 We find that Echavez did not intend to harass respondent when he filed the present administrative case. It must be noted that Echavez, who do not belong in the legal profession, is not expected to be knowledgeable of the legal proceedings considering that his main goal or purpose only was to save himself from the criminal charges against him. As such, the present administrative case was merely an attempt of Echavez to rectify the criminal charge against him which he could have done if only he availed of other judicial remedies.
Be that as it may, this serves as a stern warning to Echavez that any more similar or baseless actions in this regard shall warrant a graver penalty from this Court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. Herein complainant, Joselito Echavez is STERNLYWARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. HSAcaE
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. 61-66.
2.Id. at 56-60.
3.Id. at 67
4.Id.
5.Id. at 68.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 73.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 74.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 74-75.
15.Id. at 75.
16.Id. at 75-76.
17.Id. at 31-35.
18.Id. at 35.
19.Id. at 77.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 78.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 49.
29.Id. at 78-79.
30.Id. at 79.
31.Id.
32.Id. at 1-4.
33.Id. at 2.
34.Id.
35.Id. at 79.
36.Id.
37.Id. at 79-80.
38.Id. at 80.
39.Id. at 89.
40.Id. at 38-39.
41.Id. at 56-60.
42.Id. at 58.
43.Id. at 59.
44.Id. at 7.
45.Atty. Tamondong v. Judge Pasal, 820 Phil. 220 (2017).
46.Id. at 230. Citation omitted.
47.Atty. Flores v. Hon. Abesamis, 341 Phil. 299 (1997).
48.Id. at 312-313.
49.Rollo, p. 65.
50.Surigao Mineral Reservation Board, et al. v. Hon. Cloribel, et al., 142 Phil. 1, 20 (1970).