FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 15-4473-RTJ. January 23, 2019.]
CARLOS GAUDENCIO M. MAÑALAC, complainant, vs.JUDGE EMMANUEL A. SILVA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, MARIVELES, BATAAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 23, 2019which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 15-4473-RTJ (CARLOS GAUDENCIO M. MAÑALAC, Complainant, v. JUDGE EMMANUEL A. SILVA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, MARIVELES, BATAAN, Respondent.) — The Court resolves the verified Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated September 30, 2015 charging Judge Emmanuel Silva, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Mariveles, Bataan with gross ignorance of the law, bias and partiality, grave misconduct, and grave abuse of judicial authority in handling Civil Case No. 1068-ML. 2
Antecedents
Carlos Gaudencio M. Mañalac filed the present administrative complaint in his capacity as the general manager and duly authorized representative of Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. (PI One), a domestic corporation engaged in the business of acquiring or purchasing assets from banking and financial institutions. He alleged that on August 10, 2007, the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) irrevocably assigned all its rights, titles, and interests over the loan obligation of Diversified Plastic Film System, Inc. (Diversified) to PI One. On November 25, 2014, PI One filed a Petition for Foreclosure of the Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI) for failure of Diversified to pay its obligation for a period of 18 years.
A day before the scheduled foreclosure sale on February 13, 2015, Diversified filed a complaint for injunction with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction with the RTC Branch 4 being presided by Judge Silva. On the same day, Judge Silva issued a 72-hour TRO in favor of Diversified. The respondent judge set the hearings for the writ of preliminary injunction on February 16 and 24, 2015. When the 72-hour TRO expired and no injunction had yet been issued, PI One reapplied for the holding of the foreclosure sale which was rescheduled on March 23, 2015 and April 10, 2015.
PI One filed a memorandum on the application for a writ of preliminary injunction and subsequently a motion for inhibition against Judge Silva. In separate Orders dated March 19, 2015, Judge Silva denied the motion for inhibition and granted the writ of preliminary injunction.
In granting the TRO and the application for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, the complainant maintained that Judge Silva had violated Supreme Court Circular A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 (Re: Procedure in Extrajudicial or Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgages) which prohibits the issuance of an injunctive relief on an allegation that the loan had been paid or is not delinquent; and that Judge Silva did not consider the fact that Diversified failed to comply with the requirements provided in the said circular and that some of the mortgaged machinery and equipment were missing. As such, Judge Silva was not only grossly ignorant the circular but had also been guilty of extreme partiality and dishonesty.
In his defense, 3 Judge Silva denied the charges against him. He asserted that he did not violate SC Circular A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 because the circular did not apply to the complainant's civil case; that the complaint for injunction was anchored on PI One's lack of authority to foreclose the mortgage and not nonpayment of obligation; that the MTI claimed that the duty to foreclose belonged to All Asia Capital Trust Corporation (All Asia) as trustee; that on September 2, 2015, PI One filed a petition for appointment as trustee, thereby impliedly admitting that it was not the trustee under the MTI.
On the basis of the parties' submissions, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted its evaluation report and recommended that the administrative complaint against Judge Silva be dismissed. The OCA found that the acts subject of the complaint refers to the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of Judge Silva. The OCA also opined that assuming Judge Silva had issued an erroneous decision or interpretation of the SC Circular and the provisions of the MTI, he cannot be held administratively liable unless there is proof that he was motivated by bad faith, malice, corruption, or dishonesty when he issued the assailed Order. 4
Issue
Is Judge Emmanuel B. Silva liable for gross ignorance of the law, bias and partiality, grave misconduct, and grave abuse of judicial authority in issuing the Orders dated March 19, 2015?
Ruling
We adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
Indubitably, the complaint against Judge Silva centered on the propriety of the Order issued on March 19, 2015 5 which granted the application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Diversified and which the respondent Judge issued in the exercise of his judicial functions.
In Humol v. Clapis, Jr., 6 We said that the propriety of issuing a writ of preliminary injunction cannot be questioned in an administrative case since this is a judicial issue that will require an evaluation of the evidence presented during the trial and should be threshed out through the appropriate judicial remedy and not through an administrative action. 7 Moreover, an administrative or disciplinary complaint is not the proper remedy to assail the judicial acts of magistrates of the law, particularly those related to their adjudicative functions; 8 any error should be corrected through appropriate judicial remedies. 9 Ordinary remedies include a motion for reconsideration or an appeal, while extraordinary remedies can be the special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, a motion for inhibition, or a petition for change of venue, if applicable. 10
The complainant herein alleged that Judge Silva should be liable for gross ignorance of the law, bias, partiality, grave misconduct and grave abuse of judicial authority when he issued the TRO and granted the application for preliminary injunction in violation of SC Circular A.M. No. 99-10-05-0. Judge Silva however countered that he issued the questioned Order on the basis of his findings that (1) the SC Circular does not apply because the complaint was not based on payment or non-delinquency and (2) that PI One was not authorized to institute the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
We find merit in Judge Silva's arguments.
To warrant a finding of ignorance of the law and abuse of authority, the error must be so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision. 11 In here, we do not find any taint of patent abuse of authority or gross ignorance of the law on the part of Judge Silva in issuing the March 19, 2015 Orders.
We likewise agree with the OCA that even if Judge Silva made an erroneous interpretation of SC Circular A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 and the provisions of the MTI relative thereto, he will still not be administratively liable. As we explained in another case:
[W]e reiterate that a judge's failure to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily incur administrative liability, for to hold him administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming he has erred, will be nothing short of harassment and will make his position doubly unbearable. His judicial office will then be rendered untenable, because no one called upon to try the facts or to interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. Administrative sanction and criminal liability should be visited on him only when the error is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or is committed with evident bad faith, or only in clear cases of violations by him of the standards and norms of propriety and good behavior prescribed by law and the rules of procedure, or fixed and defined by pertinent jurisprudence. 12
Moreover, there should be proof of acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge. 13
In the absence of any showing that improper motives or corruption had actuated the respondent, he should be presumed to have acted in utmost good faith in his interpretation of SC Circular A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 and the provisions of the MTI relative thereto. As such, he could not be held guilty of the charges imputed against him.
WHEREFORE, We DISMISS the present administrative complaint for lack of merit; and consider this administrative complaint against Judge Emmanuel A. Silva as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
The complaint-affidavit dated September 30, 2015 (with enclosures) of Carlos Gaudencio M. Mañalac charging Judge Emmanuel A. Silva with gross ignorance of the law, bias and partiality, grave misconduct, and grave abuse of judicial authority relative to Civil Case No. 1068-ML, entitled "Diversified Plastic Film System, Inc. vs. Ex Officio Sheriff Regional Trial Court Mariveles, Bataan, Sheriff Paladin E. Palad and Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc."; the comment (with enclosures) of Judge Emmanuel A. Silva on the complaint; the complainant's reply to comment on the complaint; the complainant's manifestations dated June 7, 2016, September 12, 2017 and October 12, 2017 (with enclosures) relative to their complaint against Judge Silva; the counter-manifestation dated January 11, 2018 of Judge Silva; the complainant's urgent motion to resolve, requesting speedy resolution of the instant administrative matter for the reasons stated therein; the comment and counter-manifestation of Judge Emmanuel A. Silva to the complainant's urgent motion to resolve; and the Report dated July 5, 2018 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are all NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-18.
2.Id. at 225-228. A civil action for injunction and damages entitled "Diversified Plastic Film System, Inc., plaintiff versus Ex Officio Sheriff Regional Trial Court Mariveles, et al., defendants."
3.Id. at 203-221. Comment dated December 3, 2015.
4.Id. at 485-488.
5.Id. at 192-195.
6. A.M. No. RTJ-11-2285, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 406.
7.Id. at 418.
8.Id.
9.In re Rallos, IPI Nos. 12-203-CA-J & 12-9-08-CA, December 10, 2013, 711 SCRA 673, 690.
10.Supra note 5, at 419.
11.Bengzon v. Adaoag, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1045 (Resolution), November 28, 1995, 250 SCRA 344, 348.
12.In re Fabiana, A.M. No. CA-13-51-J, July 2, 2013, 700 SCRA 348, 361, citing Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, Chairman of the Board/CEO of FH-Gymn Multi-Purpose and Transport Service Cooperative, against Hon. Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Hon. Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Hon. Florito S. Macalino, Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 11-184-CA-J, January 31, 2012, 664 SCRA 465, 475-476.
13.Hilado v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1910, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 146, 163.