EN BANC
[IPI No. 17-259-CA-J. March 13, 2018.]
RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT DATED MAY 29, 2017 OF ATTY. LETICIA FUENTES AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICES GABRIEL T. INGLES, MARILYN B. LAGURA-YAP, AND GERMANO FRANCISCO D. LEGASPI, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedMARCH 13, 2018, which reads as follows: ASEcHI
"IPI No. 17-259-CA-J (Re: Letter-Complaint dated May 29, 2017 of Atty. Leticia Fuentes against Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles, Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, Court of Appeals, Cebu City). — For the Court's resolution is the letter-complaint 1 dated May 29, 2017 filed by Atty. Leticia P. Fuentes (complainant) against Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles, Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi (respondent Justices) of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City station, for the alleged grave abuse of discretion and rendering unjust judgment relative to CA-GR CEB CR. HC. No. 01765 entitled People of the Philippines v. Julius Pornel y Arroyo.
Antecedents
The complainant claimed that she started representing Julius Pornel y Arroyo (accused) when she filed in behalf of the accused a Motion for New Trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 36, following the accused's conviction of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 2 in Criminal Case No. 08-66215. 3 The RTC, however, in its Order 4 dated November 28, 2013, denied the accused's motion for lack of merit. 5
The accused, through the complainant, filed an appeal to the CA. The case was docketed as CA-GR CEB CR. HC. No. 01765 entitled People of the Philippines v. Julius Pornel y Arroyo, and raffled to the Eighteenth Division of the CA, then composed of the respondent Justices.
On June 15, 2016, the CA Eighteenth Division rendered a Decision 6 affirming the decision of the RTC in toto. 7 The accused, through the complainant, moved for reconsideration 8 of the decision but the CA denied the motion in the Resolution 9 dated October 27, 2016. The complainant, thereafter, filed an Opposition to the CA's Resolution of October 27, 2016. 10 Thus, the CA issued the Resolution dated April 27, 2017 denying the complainant's opposition.
Aggrieved, the complainant filed the present administrative complaint, ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Justices, and charging them with rendering unjust judgment. 11 She raised the sole issue of whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and argued that the lower court erred in not dismissing the crime charged against the accused. 12 She also alleged that the respondent Justices did not bother to read the pleadings or documents that she submitted before the appellate court. 13 She specifically assailed the CA's Resolution dated April 27, 2017 and prayed that immediate investigation be conducted upon the respondent Justices. 14
In the Resolution 15 dated August 1, 2017, the Court required the respondent Justices to submit their comment on the administrative complaint.
In their Comment, 16 the respondent Justices denied the accusations against them and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 17 They pointed out that the decision rendered in the case has already become final and executory. They added that the records were already remanded to the RTC. 18
The respondent Justices emphasized that the accused's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated June 15, 2016 was filed beyond the prescribed period. Even so, they merely noted the belated filing of the motion and still resolved it in their Resolution dated October 27, 2016. 19 Complainant assailed the resolution by filing the Opposition to the Resolution Promulgated on October 27, 201620 dated December 29, 2016.
In their Resolution dated April 27, 2017, the respondent Justices denied the Opposition to the CA's Resolution dated October 27, 2016. 21 The resolution pertinently states:
We have examined the allegations and arguments advanced by accused-appellant and found that the said opposition is in fact a second motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading. Moreover, the opposition advances no new argument of consequence or substance hence, there is still no cogent reason for this court to reverse our decision promulgated on June 15, 2016 as well as our resolution promulgated on October 27, 2016. 22
The respondent Justices, moreover, contended that the issues raised by the complainant are beyond the reach of the administrative case filed against them; such questions should be properly resolved in the petition for review, filed with the Supreme Court. They also argued that the complainant failed to show that the conclusions reached by them are without sufficient substantiation. 23
Ruling of the Court
The Court DISMISSES the complaint for lack of merit.
A perusal of the complaint reveals that the act complained of by the complainant against the respondent Justices pertains to the propriety of their decision and resolutions in CA-GR CEB CR. HC. No. 01765. Clearly, the error attributed to the respondent Justices relates to the exercise of their adjudicative functions. ITAaHc
At the outset, the Court notes that the complainant made a mistake in availing the proper remedy to assail the judgment of the accused's conviction; thus, rendering it final and executory. The complainant, instead of elevating the assailed judgment for review and correction before this Court, filed an opposition to the resolution denying the accused's motion for reconsideration. Afterwards, she filed this administrative complaint against the respondent Justices, essentially raising error of judgment on their part. To support her argument, she primarily assailed the CA Resolution dated April 27, 2017.
The Court adheres to the policy that the errors, if any, committed by a judge in the exercise of his judicial functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings. 24 Also, administrative complaints against judges and justices cannot and should not substitute for appeal and other judicial remedies against an assailed decision or ruling. 25
In any event, the Court is convinced that when the respondent Justices issued the Resolution dated April 27, 2017, they were not without basis in denying the complainant's opposition. First, the issues raised by the complainant were already addressed in the decision promulgated on June 15, 2016. Second, the Court also agrees with the respondent Justices that the opposition was in effect a second motion for reconsideration. Indeed, the Rules of Court 26 are explicit that a second motion for reconsideration shall not be allowed. Thus, no error can be attributed to the respondent Justices.
Even granting that the respondent Justices erred in their resolution, the Court stresses that the judge cannot be subjected to liability — civil, criminal or administrative, for such judicial error, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. 27
In the same vein, administrative liability will only attach upon proof that the actions of the respondent Justices were motivated by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred, or attended by fraud, corruption, 28 or a deliberate intent to do an injustice on his or her part. 29 In the absence of a showing to the contrary, defective or erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith. 30
The Court finds that the foregoing considerations to hold the respondent Justices administratively liable were not sufficiently established in the complaint. Significantly, the complainant did not impute malice or bad faith on the part of respondent Justices in her complaint; they were, therefore, presumed to have acted in good faith. Moreover, bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment or order is adverse to a party. 31
Accordingly, neither the complainant's allegation of grave abuse of discretion alone against the respondent Justices will suffice to warrant the imposition of administrative sanction.
The Court also rejects the complainant's allegation that the respondent Justices did not bother to read the pleadings or documents that she submitted before the appellate court 32 for lack of sufficient basis.
In administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges falls on the complainant who must prove her allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence. 33 The Court thus cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.
In fine, while the Court is aware of its duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against justices, judges and other employees of the Judiciary, it is likewise its duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from unmeritorious administrative charges that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. 34
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the administrative complaint against Court of Appeals' Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles, Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi is DISMISSED for lack of merit." Sereno, C.J., on leave. (adv1)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-7.
2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
3.Rollo, p. 2.
4.Id. at 108-109.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 198-208.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 20-36.
9.Id. at 213.
10. Id. at 8-11.
11. Id. at 2.
12. Id. at 5.
13. Id. at 3.
14. Id. at 5.
15. Id. at 209.
16. Id. at 212-218.
17. Id. at 7.
18. Id. at 213.
19. Id. at 215.
20. Id. at 8-18.
21. Id. at 213.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 6.
24. Re: Verified Complaint of AMA Land, Inc. against Justice Bueser, et al. of the CA, 701 Phil. 462, 468 (2013).
25. Maylas, Jr. v. Judge Sese, 529 Phil. 594, 598 (2006).
26. RULES OF COURT, Rule 52, Section 2.
27. Atty. Fernandez v. CA Justices Verzola, Villarama, Jr. and Guariña III, 480 Phil. 1, 6 (2004).
28. Re: Verified Complaint of AMA Land, Inc. against Justice Bueser, et al. of the CA, supra note 24.
29. Planas v. Judge Reyes, 492 Phil. 288, 300 (2005).
30. Id.
31. Chua v. Judge Madrona, 742 Phil. 98, 109 (2014).
32. Rollo, p. 3.
33. C/Insp. Dayag v. Judge Gonzales, 526 Phil. 48, 57 (2006).
34. Id. at 58.