FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 20-5028-RTJ. April 26, 2021.]
ROGELIO F. RAMIREZ, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA, complainant,vs. HON. MISAEL M. LADAGA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCH 292, MALABON CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 26, 2021which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 20-5028-RTJ (Rogelio F. Ramirez, represented by Atty. Stanley Cabrera, Complainant, v. Hon. Misael M. Ladaga, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court [RTC], Branch 292, Malabon City, Respondent). — This is an administrative complaint 1 filed by Rogelio F. Ramirez (complainant) before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Misael M. Ladaga (respondent), Presiding Judge of Branch 292, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City, for gross ignorance of the law, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice, and obstruction of justice.
Antecedents
This administrative complaint stems from the supposed inaction of respondent in Civil Case No. CV-2624-MAL (civil case) entitled, Raja Prince Julian Morden Tallano, represented by Atty.-in-Fact Rogelio F. Ramirez vs. Heir of Corazon Gabriel Ignacio and Gracia Ignacio Garcia. Complainant alleged that ever since the case was re-raffled to his sala, respondent judge has not taken any action on the case, not even to summon the defendant to appear before the court.
In his Comment, 2 respondent justifies the attributed omission as "legal and purely judicial in nature." He explained also that the alleged delay was because the civil case was originally raffled to Branch 291, but was dismissed motu proprio by the presiding judge for lack of jurisdiction. 3 Instead of perfecting an appeal, complainant moved for the judge to inhibit from the case, which the latter granted. 4 When the case was re-raffled to respondent's sala, complainant also sought his inhibition from the case. Respondent granted the same to dispel any signs of bias. 5 The civil case was re-raffled to Branch 193, which ultimately declared the civil case as final and executory due to complainant's failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period. Respondent would later learn that, despite granting the motion for his inhibition, complainant filed an administrative complaint against him.
Recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator
In its 27 January 2021 Report, 6 the OCA found the complaint to be baseless, considering that the alleged "inaction" on the part of the respondent judge was justified and that he acted in good faith. The OCA also noted that respondent has a propensity to file administrative complaints whenever things do not go his way. Thus, the OCA made the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that the instant administrative complaint against Judge Misael M. Ladaga, Branch 292, RTC Malabon City, be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. 7
Ruling of the Court
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the OCA. We must underscore that complainant is asking respondent to issue summons in a case that has already been dismissed.
Complainant insists that respondent's inaction amounts to gross ignorance of the law, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice, and obstruction of justice.
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that the decision, order, or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties is contrary to existing law and jurisprudence. It must be established that he was moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption, or had committed an error so egregious that it amounted to bad faith. 8
Respondent's conduct hardly falls under any of the accusations of the complainant. As correctly explained by respondent, no summons was issued since there was no longer any complaint to speak of. In fact, had the respondent done otherwise, would result to a procedural faux pas. More importantly, respondent had already inhibited from the case, upon complainant's motion, no less. Respondent no longer had authority to act on any of the incidents of the civil case.
In administrative proceedings, complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence. If they fail to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which their claims are based, the respondents are not obliged to prove their exception or defense. 9 In this case, the administrative complaint must be dismissed not just because the complainant failed to present any form of evidence that would substantiate his allegations, but also because respondent has shown that he exercised sound judgment.
As correctly put by the OCA, since the instant administrative complaint pertains to respondent's exercise of his adjudicative functions, instead of exploiting administrative proceedings, the complainant should have exhausted judicial remedies. 10 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 bad faith, fraud, malice, or dishonesty. 11
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, and 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. Judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith; and that exceptionally, prosecution of a 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 or 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. 12
Finally, the Court is mindful of complainant's propensity to indiscriminately file administrative cases for every misstep he has made on the case in order to coerce or squeeze a favorable decision. For this, the Court sternly warns Complainant's counsel of record, Atty. Stanley Cabrera, from filing or even advising his client from initiating harassing administrative complaints to elicit favorable judgment. The Court on occasion, had subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for filing malicious and harassing administrative cases. 13 After all, those who seek relief from the courts must not be allowed to ignore basic legal rules and abuse court processes in their efforts to vindicate their rights. 14
In Tan Tiac Chiong v. Cosico, 15 the Court exhorted 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.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case against respondent Judge Misael M. Ladaga is hereby DISMISSED.
Complainant's counsel, ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA, is CAUTIONED against initiating frivolous and harassing administrative proceedings, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely.
The letter dated December 10, 2019 and complaint-affidavit dated February 10, 2020 (with enclosures) of Rogelio F. Ramirez, through counsel, charging Presiding Judge Misael M. Ladaga with gross ignorance of the law, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice and obstruction of justice relative to Civil Case No. CV-2624-MAL entitled "Raja Prince Julian Morden Tallano, represented by Attorney-in-Fact Rogelio F. Ramirez vs. Heir of Corazon Gabriel Ignacio and Gracia Ignacio Garcia"; the comment on the complaint (with enclosures) of Presiding Judge Misael M. Ladaga; and the Report dated January 27, 2021 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are all NOTED.
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. 2-7.
2.Id. at 15-17.
3.Id. at 18-20.
4.Id. at 21-22.
5.Id. at 23.
6.Id. at 26-29.
7.Id. at 29.
8.Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Dumayas, Branch 59, RTC Makati City, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2435, 06 March 2018.
9.Re: Letter of Lucena Ofendoreyes Alleging Illicit Activities of a Certain Atty. Cajayon Involving Cases in the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City, 810 Phil. 396 (2017); A.M. No. 16-12-03-CA, 06 June 2017 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe], citing Bruselas, Jr. v. Mallari, A.C. No. 9683, 21 February 2017.
10.Rollo, p. 27.
11.Sps. De Guzman v. Judge Pamintuan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Baguio City, 452 Phil. 963 (2003); A.M. No. RTJ-02-1736, 26 June 2003 [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez].
12.Id.; citing In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382, 417-418 [1987]; In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405 [1995].
13.See Ret. Judge Alpajora v. Atty. Calayan, A.C. No. 8208, 10 January 2018 [Per J. Gesmundo].
14.Re: Verified Complaint of AMA Land, Inc. Against Hon. Danton Q. Bueser, Hon. Sesinando E. Villon and Hon. Ricardo R. Rosario, Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, 701 Phil. 462 (2013); A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-202-CA-J, 15 January 2013 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
15. 434 Phil. 753 (2002); A.M. No. CA-02-33, 31 July 2002 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].