SECOND DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 19-3038-MTJ. September 21, 2020.]
MARY LOU B. ESTRADA AND ROBERTO S. APDUHAN, SR., complainants, vs. PRESIDING JUDGE KAREN S. CANULLAS-ARMADA, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 123, LAS PIÑAS CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 September 2020 which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 19-3038-MTJ (Mary Lou B. Estrada and Roberto S. Apduhan, Sr. v. Presiding Judge Karen S. Canullas-Armada, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 123, Las Piñas City). — Before the Court is a Verified Complaint 1 dated March 13, 2019 filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by Mary Lou B. Estrada (Estrada) and Roberto S. Apduhan, Sr. (Apduhan) (collectively, complainants) against respondent Judge Karen S. Canullas-Armada 2 (Judge Canullas-Armada), Presiding Judge, Branch (Br.) 123, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Las Piñas City.
Antecedents
Complainants charged Judge Canullas-Armada with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Neglect of Duty and violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary relative to Criminal Case No. 74563 for Estafa filed before the MeTC, Las Piñas City entitled, "People of the Philippines vs. Marylou Bhalwart Estrada, a.k.a. Marylhou Balwhart Estrada, Madilyn Sarmiento @ Madz, Amado B. Dumam-ag, Jr., Rogelio Casanova @ Roger, Roberto Apduhan @ Bobby, and Lus Delgado Solano," wherein complainants were several of the accused.
Complainants alleged that: (1) on November 29, 2018, their counsel received the copy of the Prosecutors' Resolution 3 dated August 29, 2018 recommending that they be charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code; (2) on November 30, 2018, Estrada filed her Motion for Reconsideration while Apduhan filed his Motion for Reconsideration on December 4, 2018; (3) despite the fact that complainants' motions remained pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor, an Information 4 for Estafa was filed against them before Br. 123, MeTC, Las Piñas City; and (4) on November 15, 2018, Judge Canullas-Armada issued a warrant of arrest against complainants. 5
Complainants questioned Judge Canullas-Armada's act of issuing a warrant of arrest because, according to them, the Information 6 was prematurely filed in view of their pending motions for reconsideration. Thus, complainants claimed that Judge Canullas-Armada had no basis for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Complainants averred further that the amount involved in the Estafa case was beyond the jurisdiction of the MeTC. 7
In the letter 8 dated March 15, 2019, the OCA required Judge Canullas-Armada to file her comment to the complaint.
OCA Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation 9 dated June 19, 2020, the OCA noted that even without Judge Canullas-Armada's comment, the instant complaint is dismissible for being judicial in nature and for lack of merit. Hence, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint. 10
Issue
Whether Judge Canullas-Armada should be held administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Neglect of Duty and violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
Our Ruling
The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA.
In administrative proceedings, the rule is that complainants bear the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaint. 11 In the present case, the record is bereft of any evidence to prove the complainants' contention that Judge Canullas-Armada is guilty of the alleged violations. Thus, the presumption that Judge Canullas-Armada has regularly performed her duties prevails. 12
On this score alone, the complaint must be dismissed.
In any case, as correctly observed by the OCA, the issue of whether the MeTC has jurisdiction over the case and whether Judge Canullas-Armada erred in issuing the warrant of arrest are matters that cannot be taken up in an administrative proceeding as they relate to judicial questions.
A judicial question is raised when the determination of the question involves the exercise of a judicial function, i.e., the question involves the determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the matter in controversy. 13
Considering that the issues are judicial in nature, it is beyond the realm of an administrative proceeding. 14
All things considered, the Court stresses that in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, 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 judgment. 15
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Karen S. Canullas-Armada of Branch 123, Metropolitan Trial Court, Las Piñas City is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See petition; rollo, pp. 2-10.
2. Referred to as Hon. Judge Karen Canulas-Armada in some parts of the rollo.
3.Rollo, pp. 14-17; penned by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Aurelio H. Castillo with recommending approval of Deputy City Prosecutor Zelica Salvador Longcob, as approved by City Prosecutor Marlyn Cynthia Fatima Madamba-Luang.
4.Id. at 11-13.
5.Id. at 3-5.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id. at 30.
9.Id. at 31-34.
10.Id. at 34.
11.De Guzman v. Dy, 453 Phil. 214-220 (2003).
12.Biado v. Brawner-Cualing, 805 Phil. 694-707 (2017).
13.Metro Iloilo Water District v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 251-263 (2005).
14.Union Bank of the Phils. v. Judge Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan, A.M. OCA-IPI-07-2716-RTJ (Resolution) June 02, 2008.
15.Datuin, Jr. v. Soriano, 439 Phil. 592-606 (2002).