FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 14-4325-RTJ. November 22, 2017.]
ROLANDO D. OGAN, complainant,vs. HON. JUDGE EDDIE R. ROJAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39, POLOMOLOK, SOUTH COTABATO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 22, 2017, which reads as follows: cDTACE
"OCA IPI No. 14-4325-RTJ (Rolando D. Ogan vs. Hon. Judge Eddie R. Rojas, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Polomolok, South Cotabato)
Before Us is a Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed by complainant Rolando D. Ogan (Ogan) against respondent Judge Eddie R. Rojas (Judge Rojas) of Regional Trial Court of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39 for gross ignorance of the law in violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, 2 Section 5 (a), 3 and R.A. No. 3019, 4 Section 3 (e). 5
The case stemmed from a civil case for injunction and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 727-13 entitled "Jess Emerson Uy, et al. v. Rolando Ogan, et al."
In said case, Ogan filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Verified Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Inhibition 6 for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and for failure of respondent Judge to dismiss the case outright, as it involves ancestral land which is under the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).
In his Complaint, Ogan alleged that Judge Rojas failed to act on his motion to dismiss within 15 days from receipt thereof in violation of Section 5 (a) of R.A. No. 6713, the Lawyer's Oath, and his oath as a public official required by the Administrative Code of 1987. 7
Ogan further averred that despite of lack of jurisdiction, Judge Rojas proceeded with the case and set the same for pre-trial on October 16, 2013. However, none of the parties and their counsels appeared. Ogan claimed that despite the urgency of the pending incident, Judge Rojas committed grave abuse of discretion when he arbitrarily ordered the pre-trial to be reset to November 20, 2013, instead of dismissing the case motu proprio. 8 Ogan claimed that Judge Rojas committed usurpation of official function as the case should properly be lodged with the NCIP.
In his Comment, 9 Judge Rojas argued that there was no evidence on record showing that he was motivated by malice, greed or corruption or some other motive, or that he derived pecuniary benefit from not dismissing said civil case. On his alleged failure to timely act on Ogan's motion, he argued that he timely acted on said motion as he rendered an Order 10 dated June 3, 2014, after the filing of said motion on May 26, 2014, contrary to Ogan's assertions. 11
On his alleged failure to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Rojas maintained that under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, it is mandatory for parties to appear at the pre-trial; otherwise, appropriate sanctions will be imposed. However, Judge Rojas claimed that he deemed it wise to adopt a liberal interpretation of the rules and give both parties opportunity to fight their case. Juxtapose these, said case was eventually dismissed in an Order 12 dated August 13, 2014 because of failure of both parties to appear at the pre-trial. 13
In a Memorandum 14 dated August 3, 2017, the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the instant case for being judicial in nature and for utter lack of merit. The Court Administrator ruled that Ogan failed to show and prove the existence of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption on the part of Judge Rojas when he took cognizance of Civil Case No. 727-13 and rendered an order re-setting the case for pre-trial. Further, the Court Administrator insisted that the issue on jurisdiction is a matter that should be properly raised in the proper forum; 15 hence judicial in nature. The Court Administrator also took notice of the fact that the records show that the motion to dismiss filed by Ogan was timely acted upon by Judge Rojas. 16
We dismiss the complaint.
Administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and special courts; and the court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers in accordance with AM. No. 02-9-02-SC. 17
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed to practice law. 18
In the case of Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, 19 the court held that:
[I]n the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. 20 cCHITA
In order to hold Judge Rojas liable, there must be substantial evidence that he committed an offense. 21 The burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding against court officials and employees falls on [Ogan], who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that respondent regularly performed his duties will prevail. 22
In this case, We rule that Ogan failed to discharge the burden of proof.
As to Judge Rojas' alleged failure to timely act on Ogan's motion to dismiss, We agree with the findings of the Court Administrator that the records reveal that the same was seasonably acted upon. It must be noted that Ogan filed his motion on May 26, 2014 and Judge Rojas issued a resolution of said motion on June 3, 2014.
Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution provides that all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within 24 months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, 12 months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
Hence, Judge Rojas did not commit a violation when he rendered the Order on June 3, 2014 or eight days after the motion to dismiss was filed.
As to Judge Rojas' act of re-setting the case for pre-trial instead of dismissing the same motu proprio, We likewise agree with the Court Administrator that the same is judicial in nature, which cannot be given due course in this proceeding. Significantly, an administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonesty, 23 which was not proven in this case.
Aside from bare allegations, Ogan offered no proof that Judge Rojas' order was issued with fraud, malice, or dishonesty.
In the Court Resolution, Emelda A. Magtoto v. Judge Artemio: 24
While it [is] the Court's duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against judges and other court personnel, it is also its duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. The administrative complaint against Judge Eddie R. Rojas is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-14.
2. AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on February 20, 1989.
3.Sec. 5.Duties of Public Officials and Employees. — In the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are under obligation to:
a) Act promptly on letters and requests. — All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request.
4. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. Approved on August 17, 1960.
5.Sec. 3.Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
6.Rollo, pp. 16-26.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id. at 5-9.
9.Id. at 71-74.
10.Id. at 75-77.
11.Id. at 71-72.
12.Id. at 78.
13.Id. at 72-73.
14.Id. at 426-430.
15.Id. at 429-430.
16.Id. at 28.
17. A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC dated September 17, 2002 entitled Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings against Them Both as Such Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar.
18.Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390, 407 (2013).
19. 702 Phil. 390 (2013).
20.Id. at 407.
21.Re: Missing Exhibits and Court Properties in RTC, Br. 4, Panabo City, Davao Del Norte, 705 Phil. 8, 15 (2013).
22.Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge Villalon-Pornillos, 609 Phil. 504, 518 (2009).
23.Santiago III v. Justice Enriquez, Jr., 598 Phil. 482, 488 (2009).
24. A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1667-RTJ dated January 31, 2005.