FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 20-5074-RTJ. June 14, 2021.]
KOMPASS CREDIT AND FINANCING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY AILEEN D. MILLAN, complainant, vs.HON. SILVINO T. PAMPILO, JR., FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 26, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 20-5074-RTJ (Kompass Credit and Financing Corporation, represented by Aileen D. Millan, Complainantv. Hon. Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr., former Presiding Judge, Branch 26, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Respondent.) — This is an administrative complaint filed by Kompass Credit and Financing Corporation (Kompass) against former Presiding Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr., 1 (Judge Pampilo) of Branch 26, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, for grave misconduct and violation of Canons 3 2 and 4 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
Kompass alleged in its Complaint-Affidavit 4 dated 03 September 2020 that on 24 February 2017, Civil Case No. 16-135928 5 was re-raffled to Judge Pampilo, following the inhibition of Judge Carolina Icasiano-Sison. In his Decision 6 dated 18 December 2017, Judge Pampilo declared the loan documents and the real estate mortgage which Kompass foreclosed as null and void, for failure of Kompass to comply with the disclosure requirements mandated by R.A. No. 3765. 7 The extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings conducted on 08 June 2017 and the Certificate of Sale dated 28 June 2017 were likewise declared invalid and without legal force and effect. Thus, the Registry of Deeds of Manila (RD Manila) was ordered and directed to immediately cancel the new titles issued in the name of Kompass and transfer the same to and in the name of one Jonathan Emmanuel P. Domingo (Domingo). caITAC
Kompass filed a Notice of Appeal after Judge Pampilo denied its Motion for Reconsideration. On 18 September 2018, in his Omnibus Order, 8 Judge Pampilo denied the Motion to Transmit the Original Records to the Court of Appeals (CA) and ordered the court sheriff to immediately execute and implement the judgment. Kompass filed a petition for certiorari which the CA earlier dismissed in its Resolution dated 19 October 2019. The CA, however, eventually reinstated Kompass' petition for certiorari by Resolution 9 dated 07 November 2019. Despite the filing of the petition for certiorari by Kompass, the RD Manila cancelled the new titles issued in the name of Kompass, and new ones were issued in the name of Domingo.
On 04 May 2018, while the case was pending with the CA, Domingo and A.M. Flores and Company, Inc., filed a Manifestation with Motion to Quash Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate 10 in P-17-0265 (LRC REC No. 2724) before Branch 4, RTC-Manila. On 04 March 2019, Judge Jose Lorenzo R. Dela Rosa, as the presiding judge in said case, issued an Order 11 stating that the court would await for the decision of the CA out of judicial courtesy. This pending incident before the RTC became the basis for the filing of the Notice of Lis Pendens before the RD Manila.
On 08 April 2019, Domingo filed an Ex-Parte Motion (to Cancel Lis Pendens) 12 before RTC Branch 26, which Judge Pampilo granted in his Order 13 dated 29 May 2019. Judge Pampilo denied the Motion for Reconsideration in his Order 14 dated 04 October 2019.
Evaluation and Recommendation of the OCA
In its Report 15 dated 28 January 2021, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the instant administrative case for being judicial in nature. Moreover, the allegations of grave misconduct and partiality are devoid of merit because Kompass failed to establish Judge Pampilo's bad faith, malice or ill will.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the evaluation and recommendation of the OCA well-taken.
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. 16
Moreover, Kompass already pursued a judicial remedy to challenge the Decision of Judge Pampilo by filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Law and logic decree that "administrative" or criminal remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available, and must wait on the result thereof. Indeed, since judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors, they should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions; and it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute, that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith; and that exceptionally, prosecution of the judge can be had only if "there be a final declaration by a competent court in some appropriate proceeding of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment or order, and . . . also evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance of inexcusable negligence, on the part of the judge in rendering said judgment or order" or under the stringent circumstances set out in Article 32 of the Civil Code. 17
Finally, in Tan Tiac Chiong v. Cosico, 18 the Court emphatically stated that it will not hesitate to protect Judges or court personnel against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes when an administrative charge against them has no basis whatsoever in fact or in law. It will not shirk its responsibility of imposing discipline upon all employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice, as in this case.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSED for being judicial in nature and for lack of merit.
The complaint-affidavit dated 03 September 2020 (with enclosures) of Kompass Credit and Financing Corporation, represented by Aileen D. Millan; and the Report dated 28 January 2021 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are both NOTED. cDHAES
SO ORDERED." Gaerlan, J., took no part; Lopez, M. J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated 26 May 2021.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Judge Pampilo optionally retired from the service on 01 September 2020.
2. Canon 3
Impartiality
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
Section 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.
3. Canon 4
Propriety
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.
Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.
4.Rollo, pp. 2-14.
5. Entitled "Jonathan Emmanuel P. Domingo and A.M. Flores and Company, Inc. vs. Kompass Credit and Financing Corporation, et al."
6.Rollo, pp. 16-24.
7. Truth in Lending Act, as amended.
8.Rollo, pp. 28-33. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant's Notice of Appeal dated May 15, 2018 is hereby dismissed for having been filed out of time and for being fatally defective.
As a consequence, the Decision dated December 18, 2017 and the Order dated April 26, 2018 of this court are both rendered final and executory. Let the Writ of Execution be now issued immediately directing the court sheriff to execute or implement the judgment of this court.
All other motions subject of this Omnibus Order are denied for being rendered moot and academic or for lack of merit, as discussed above.
SO ORDERED.
9.Id. at 34-38; penned by Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now Member of the Supreme Court), concurred in by Justices Elihu A. Ybañez, Danton Q. Bueser, Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, and dissented by Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol of the Special Former Special Twelfth (12th) Division, Division of Five, Court of Appeals, Manila.
10.Id. at 52-58.
11.Id. at 56.
12.Id. at 57-58.
13.Id. at 75-76.
14.Id. at 77-81.
15.Id. at 98-101.
16.Trasmonte v. Codilla, Jr., A.C. No. 8204, 28 November 2019 (Notice).
17.Spouses Chan v. Lantion, 505 Phil. 159 (2005); A.M. No. RTJ-05-1945, 25 August 2005 (Resolution) [Per J. Tinga].
18. 434 Phil. 753; A.M. No. CA-02-33, 31 July 2002 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].