FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 17-4749-RTJ. August 27, 2020.]
SALEM T. PENDATUN AND ALI T. PENDATUN, complainants, vs. JUDGE SITTIE LAARNI R. UMPA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BR. 9, RTC OF MARAWI CITY, LANAO DEL SUR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 27, 2020 which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 17-4749-RTJ (Salem T. Pendatun and Ali T. Pendatun v. Judge Sittie Laarni R. Umpa, Presiding Judge, Br. 9, RTC of Marawi City, Lanao del Sur)
Antecedents
Complainants Salem T. Pendatun and Ali T. Pendatun charged 1 respondent Judge Sittie Laarni R. Umpa, Presiding Judge of Branch 9, Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Marawi City, Lanao del Sur with grave abuse of discretion, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, gross dereliction of duties, and manifest partiality relative to the case of People of thePhilippines v. Mario Pagayon, et al., docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 15-162-W to 15-174-W.
On May 26, 2015, private complainants charged Mario Pagayon, Nilo Pagayon, Nardo Pagayon, Rene Dimapeles, Noel Dimapeles, Tonton Albino, Dennis Cordero, Ondo Salazar, Ondoc Sandoval, Primo Benabiente, Christopher Catalan, Exur Balicao, Elvino Balicao, Jr., Bobby Balicao, Igmedio Bayog Janver Catequista, and five (5) John Does with murder before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Lanao del Sur. Accordingly, thirteen (13) Informations were filed for one (1) count of multiple attempted murder, four (4) counts of murder, and eight (8) counts of frustrated murder before Branch 26, RTC for Wao, Lanao del Sur (Branch 26). 2
Judge Pundaya M. Berua, Presiding Judge, Branch 26, voluntarily inhibited himself from handling the cases. Hence, the case records were transmitted to the Office of the Executive Judge of RTC for Lanao del Sur, Hon. Wenida B.M. Papandayan, for re-raffling. 3 Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Hon. Thelma Bahia advised Judge Papandayan to hold in abeyance the raffling of the criminal cases. 4
Meantime, Judge Papandayan issued an Order dated August 28, 2015 5 directing the prosecution and defense to submit their comment on the transfer of venue from Branch 26 to Branch 9. The Order noted that the cases involved minor victims, thus, they would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. Judge Papandayan further stated that the re-raffling of the said cases would operate as a transfer of venue, which would require the imprimatur of the Supreme Court unless both parties consent to the transfer. Neither the prosecution nor the defense filed their comment on the Order. 6
The prosecution thereafter filed an Extremely Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and to Issue Arrest Warrants dated September 1, 2015. Judge Papandayan, as Executive Judge of RTC for Lanao del Sur and Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 9, presided over these cases. In relation thereto, she issued Warrants of Arrest on the accused. 7
On November 26, 2015, private complainant Monabae M. Sumayan filed an Omnibus Motion to Order the Amendment of the Information for inclusion of nine (9) John Does as accused, identification of two (2) John Does as Respondents/Accused, and issuance of the corresponding Warrants of Arrest. Acting thereon, Judge Papandayan directed the prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation only as to the nine (9) John Does and to file the Amended Informations, if necessary. By Order dated February 17, 2016, Judge Papandayan granted the motion filed by Sumayan and issued Alias Warrants of Arrest on the accused. 8
The Office of the Public Prosecutor concluded the re-investigation and amended the Informations by including the four (4) identified perpetrators. Warrants of Arrest were issued on these persons. On July 7, 2016, accused brothers Mayor Elvino Balicao, Jr. and Bobby Balicao moved for another reinvestigation. 9
Sometime in June 2016, then newly appointed respondent Judge Umpa assumed her post as Presiding Judge of Branch 9. 10 She took cognizance of the cases and subsequently issued a Resolution dated July 21, 2016 11 denying the accused brothers' Motion for Reinvestigation and admitting the Amended Informations filed by the prosecutors.
Elvino and Bobby moved to quash the Amended Informations on the ground that Branch 9 does not have territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed in Wao, Lanao del Sur. 12
By Joint Resolution dated October 18, 2016, 13 Judge Umpa granted the Motion to Quash and directed the prosecutors to refile the thirteen (13) Amended Informations before Branch 26, which had territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed in Wao, Lanao del Sur. She further ordered the remand of the case records to their court of origin, Branch 26, considering that the Supreme Court had not issued an order directing the transfer of venue to Branch 9.
Instead of refiling the Amended Informations, however, the prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Judge Umpa denied the motion by Order dated December 27, 2016 14 reiterating the legal bases for remanding the records to Branch 26 and reminding the prosecution to refile the Amended Informations before Branch 26. 15
Judge Umpa then flew to Manila to consult with DCA Bahia, who explained to the former that because there was no order of transfer from the Supreme Court, the cases should remain in the docket of Branch 26. Because of the inhibition of Judge Berua, another judge should sit and try the said cases in Branch 26. DCA Bahia gave Judge Umpa the option to hold the hearing of the said cases in her sala in Branch 9, while the cases remain in the docket of Branch 26. 16
Back to Judge Papandayan, she issued an Order/Notice dated February 7, 2017 17 stating that, solely for these cases, Judge Umpa will proceed to try and hear the cases in Marawi City as the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 26.
On March 6, 2017, complainants' counsel, Atty. Salic Dumarpa, filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration 18 before Branch 9 seeking to reverse the Order dated December 27, 2016 and praying for the issuance of another warrant of arrest on Elvino and Bobby.
By Order dated March 7, 2017, 19 Judge Umpa notified Atty. Dumarpa that Branch 9 has no jurisdiction to hear his motion as the cases are docketed with Branch 26. On the same date, she issued a Joint Order 20 as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 26 stating that for security reasons and considering the eight (8)-hour travel time between Marawi City and Wao, she was opting to hold the hearing of the cases in Branch 9, but the cases will remain in the docket of Branch 26.
In addition, she sent a letter dated May 31, 2017 21 addressed to Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez recommending that the cases be transferred from Branch 26, RTC for Wao to RTC for Cagayan de Oro City or RTC for Bukidnon City in view of their proximity to Wao. She further opined that Cagayan de Oro or Bukidnon may be considered a neutral ground insofar as the cases are concerned, which involve the alleged massacre of Muslim residents by Christian residents of Wao.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge Umpa to order the prosecution and the defense to comment on her recommendation. Respondent complied and issued the corresponding Order on August 23, 2017. 22
The Panel of Public Prosecutors assigned to the cases filed their Comment 23 consenting to the transfer. The counsel for the accused however manifested that they would prefer the hearing of the cases to remain in Branch 26, but if the Court directs the change of venue, they would be amenable to the transfer. Judge Umpa forwarded the comments to the OCA. 24
Complainants now faulted respondent for overruling the resolution of Judge Papandayan. Complainants further fault her for issuing two (2) allegedly conflicting Orders both dated March 7, 2017, viz.: (1) resolving that Branch 9 cannot take cognizance of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed by their counsel because the cases were already docketed with Branch 26; and (2) acknowledging her designation as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 26 solely for the aforementioned cases.
In response, Judge Umpa denies the allegations in the complaint. She stressed that change of venue in criminal cases requires the imprimatur of the Supreme Court pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 10, issued on May 22, 1987, and Supreme Court Circular No. 1, issued on January 28, 1988. The Supreme Court has not issued any order directing the transfer of venue from Branch 26 to Branch 9. More, an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy to correct errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his or her adjudicative functions. Last, beyond the bare allegations of complainants, there is no sufficient evidence to hold her administratively liable. 25
OCA's Evaluation and Recommendation
Under its Evaluation and Recommendation dated November 18, 2019, 26 the OCA recommended that the complaint be dismissed for being judicial in nature. It explained that not all errors of judges will subject the latter to administrative liability, provided they acted in good faith and there are judicial remedies available to the party. More, there is no conflict between the two (2) Orders issued by Judge Umpa on March 7, 2017.
Issue
Is respondent guilty of grave abuse of discretion, grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, gross dereliction of duties, and manifest partiality?
Ruling
We adopt in full the Evaluation and Recommendation dated November 18, 2019 of the OCA.
Complainants argue that respondent erred in issuing the following: (1) the Joint Resolution dated October 18, 2016 granting the Motion to Quash for lack of jurisdiction over the cases; and (2) the twin Orders dated March 7, 2017, one (1) stating that Branch 9 cannot take cognizance of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration as the cases were already docketed with Branch 26 and the other acknowledging her designation as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 26.
As aptly clarified by the OCA, complainants' accusation that Judge Umpa issued two conflicting Orders both dated March 17, 2017 is misplaced, viz.:
To clarify, respondent Judge issued the Order dated 07 March 2017 stating that she cannot take cognizance of a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration as Presiding Judge of Branch 9, RTC, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur. On the other hand, she issued the Joint Order dated 07 March 2017 in her capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 26, RTC, Wao, Lanao del Sur. Both orders were properly captioned which should have guided complainants and eased their confusion. 27
Too, as a matter of public policy, not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his or her official duties render him or her liable. Otherwise, every judge, labor arbiter, or any judicial or quasi-judicial officer would be continually plagued with the possibility of being administratively sanctioned for every honest mistake or error he or she commits. 28
In Biado, et al. v. Hon. Brawner-Cualing, 29 petitioners Dominador Biado, et al., charged Hon. Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court for Tuba-Sablan, Benguet with gross ignorance of the law and manifest partiality when she issued a decision against them in Civil Case No. 302. In dismissing the administrative complaint against her, the Court declared:
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. It must be underscored that the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, no matter how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith.
In this case, it is apparent that the assailed orders relate to respondent judge's acts in her judicial capacity. These alleged errors, therefore, cannot be the proper subject of an administrative proceeding, but is only correctible through judicial remedies. Hence, what complainants should have done was to appeal the assailed orders to the higher court for review and not to file an administrative complaint against respondent judge. Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. 30
In Flores v. Abesamis, 31 the Court ruled that the law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities being committed by a trial court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies include a motion for reconsideration, a motion for new trial, and appeal. The extraordinary remedies against errors or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character are inter alia the special civil action of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, motion for inhibition, and petition for change of venue, as the case may be.
Plainly, the instant administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy here, there being judicial remedies available to complainants.
ACCORDINGLY, the complaint against respondent Judge Sittie Laarni R. Umpa is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-14.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 85.
4.Id. at 2.
5.Id. at 19-20.
6.Id. at 86.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 87-88.
9.Id. at 90.
10.Id. at 91.
11.Id. at 198-201.
12.Id. at 222-227.
13.Id. at 243-249.
14.Id. at 101.
15.Id. at 259-261.
16.Id. at 105.
17.Id. at 285-287.
18.Id. at 300-304.
19.Id. at 305.
20.Id. at 306-307.
21.Id. at 382-383.
22.Id. at 381.
23.Id. at 384-385.
24.Id. at 388-389.
25.Id. at 118-161.
26.Id. at 397-400.
27.Id. at 400.
28.OCA v. Judge Ante, Jr., et al., A.M. No. MTJ-12-1814, September 19, 2018.
29.Biado, et al. v. Hon. Brawner-Cualing, 805 Phil. 220, 231 (2017).
30.Id.
31. 820 Phil. 220, 231 (2017).