Pedro Villa vs. Judge Francisco Llamas

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 326-CJ July 31,1978

PEDRO VILLA, complainant, JUDGE FRANCISCO LLAMAS of the City Court of Pasay City, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

 

CONCEPCION JR., J.:

Letter of Dr. Pedro Villa, dated October 2, 1972, addressed to Mr. Francisco "Kit" Tatad, Press Secretary, Malacañang Palace, later referred to this Court for action, asking him to "please ask President Marcos to designate Dr. Gaudencio Garcia, Chairman of the Presidential Investigation Committee to investigate Civil Case No. 9995 and Dr. Garcia will find out how incompetent, abusive, and uselessness of Judge Llamas. This judge believed the false, false stories of the plaintiff, Victorino Esguerra, operator and maintainer of bawdy houses (prostitutes) in Calle Cabrera, Pasay City and 'vale wala' the honest and truthful testimonies of the defendants — Pedro Reyes, Cornelio Santos, Agosto Villanueva and myself. So please, have Civil Case No. 9995 investigated by Dr. Gaudencio Garcia. I hope and pray that for the good of our Country, necessary action should be taken as soon as possible in accordance with first decree of President Marcos — against Judge Francisco Llamas of Pasay City Courts, Branch IV."

Obviously, the complainant is contesting the wisdom of the respondent's decision in Civil Case No. 9995 of the City Court of Pasay City for having believed the testimony of the plaintiff, an alleged operator and maintainer of houses of (prostitute) and disbelieved the testimony of the defendants, and is asking for the review of the said decision. Said circumstance, however, is not an indubitable ground for penalizing a judge administratively. As this Court had said: "To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable." 1 Besides, the record shows that the complainant, Dr. Pedro Villa, had interposed an appeal to the Court of First Instance of Rizal which he subsequently withdrew in consideration of the amount of P250 to him paid by the plaintiff therein, for the expenses incurred in removing his residential house from the land of the plaintiff. The withdrawal of his appeal indicated his conformity with the questioned decision of the respondent judge.

WHEREFORE, the complaint is dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Santos, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., took no part.

 

Footnotes

1 Dizon vs. De Borja, Adm. Case No. 163-J, January 28, 1971.