EN BANC
[IPI No. 20-280-CA-J. November 17, 2020-2021.]
RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT DATED JANUARY 27, 2020 OF ROBERTA COLMENAR RICO, SERGIO JAVIER COLMENAR, AND JUANITA COLMENAR ORTIZ, complainants,vs. HON. BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS FORMER ASSISTING PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 23, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TRECE MARTIRES CITY, CAVITE AND HON. PURIFICATION A. BARING TUVERA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SAME COURT, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated NOVEMBER 17, 2020 which reads as follows:
"IPI No. 20-280-CA-J (Re: Verified Complaint dated January 27, 2020 of Roberta Colmenar Rico, Sergio Javier Colmenar, and Juanita Colmenar Ortiz v. Hon. Bonifacio S. Pascua, Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, Manila, in his capacity as Former Assisting Presiding Judge, Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Trece Martires City, Cavite and Hon. Purification A. Baring Tuvera, Presiding Judge of the same court). — Before the Court is a verified Administrative Complaint 1 filed by Roberta Colmenar Rico, Sergio Javier Colmenar, and Juanita Colmenar Ortiz (collectively, complainants) seeking the imposition of disciplinary measures against Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Bonifacio S. Pascua (Justice Pascua), in his capacity as the Former Assisting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Trece Martires City, Cavite, Branch 23, and Judge Purificacion A. Baring Tuvera (Judge Baring Tuvera; collectively, respondent Judges), Presiding Judge of the same court, for allegedly rendering unjust decisions, which unduly deprived them of their 39-hectare property.
The Facts
The present case arose from a civil case for Quieting of Title and Removal of Cloud on Title and Injunction with Application for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by Willy Ong (Ong) and Tomas D. Santos (Santos) against complainants. The case was filed before the RTC of Trece Martires City, Cavite, Branch 23, which was presided by then RTC Judge Pascua.
Ong and Santos alleged that they are the registered owners of the parcels of land located in Barangay Conchu, Trece Martires City with an aggregate area of approximately 39,545.30 square meters (sq.m.), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. (T-401991) T-4383, (T-401993) T-4385, and T-3537.
Sometime in March 2017, a group of men claiming to be security guards entered the subject properties and built small nipa huts and placed other building materials thereon. Upon inquiry, Atty. Jose R. Bawalan, the representative of the persons claiming ownership over the subject properties, presented TCT No. (T-203617) T-94236 as proof of ownership of his principals. Upon perusal, the aforesaid TCT covers a parcel of land located in Barrio Aliang, Municipality of General Trias, Cavite, with an area of approximately 442,382 sq.m. 2
On July 24, 2017, Ong and Santos filed a complaint for quieting of title against complainants. In their Answer, 3 complainants insist on their ownership over the subject properties which are part of the San Francisco de Malabon Friar Lands Estate. Complainants likewise presented tax declarations to prove that they have been paying for the taxes of the subject properties.
On January 21, 2019, Judge Pascua rendered a Decision 4 in favor of Ong and Santos. The fallo of the Decision reads as follows: SDHTEC
WHEREFORE, finding plaintiffs' cause of action to be sufficiently established and supported by evidence on records, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the Plaintiffs Willy Ong and Tomas D. Santos and against the Defendants, and hereby orders the following:
(1) The preliminary prohibitory injunction issued by the Court in its Order dated 20 October 2017 is hereby made permanent;
(2) TCT No. (T-203617) T-94236 or any derivative title(s) thereof is hereby declared as null and void and the Defendants are required to surrender their Owner's Duplicate of TCT No. (T-203617) T-94236 and/or any of its derivatives;
(3) The Tax Declaration No. 004-01-0662-A and/or any of its derivatives is hereby declared as null and void;
(4) The Register of Deeds of the City of Trece Martires is hereby directed to cause the cancellation of TCT No. (T-203617) T-94236 as well as any of its derivatives;
(5) The City Assessor of the City of Trece Martires is hereby directed to cancel Tax Declaration No. 004-01-0662-A as well as any of its derivatives; and
(6) No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED. 5
Aggrieved, complainants filed an Omnibus Motion 6 dated February 14, 2019. In their omnibus motion, complainants alleged that Judge Pascua has shown manifest bias and partiality towards Ong and Santos by not considering the patent discrepancies of the origins of the titles of Ong and Santos, as well as their admitted pieces of evidence. Judge Pascua recused himself from hearing the case and ordered the records of the case to be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle.
Complainants' motion for reconsideration was thereafter resolved by Assisting Judge Jose L. Bautista, Jr. (Judge Bautista), who granted the motion and set aside the decision rendered by Judge Pascua. The dispositive portion of the Order 7 dated July 31, 2019 reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration and Additional Supplemental Omnibus Motion filed by the defendant-Colmenars is granted. The decision dated January 21, 2019 is hereby reversed and set aside. The complaint for quieting of title of TCT No. (T-401991) 4383; TCT No. (T-401993) T-4385; and TCT No. T-3537 is hereby DISMISSED and the Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction previously issued by this Court is hereby ordered LIFTED.
No Cost.
SO ORDERED. 8
Not in conformity with the Order dated July 31, 2019, Ong and Santos filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 9 The newly-appointed judge of the RTC, Branch 23, Judge Baring Tuvera, issued a Resolution 10 dated December 26, 2019, granting the aforesaid motion and reinstating the Decision dated January 21, 2019, which was rendered by Judge Pascua.
Herein complainants filed an Omnibus Motion 11 dated January 22, 2020 praying for Judge Baring Tuvera to inhibit herself from the case and for the new Judge to resolve the motion for reconsideration to set aside the Resolution dated December 26, 2019. In their omnibus motion, complainants alleged the same grounds in their previously filed Omnibus Motion dated February 14, 2019 — that Judge Baring Tuvera also showed manifest bias and partiality towards Ong and Santos.
On January 28, 2020, during the pendency of the aforesaid omnibus motion, complainants filed the present administrative complaint against respondent Judges.
The Issue
In their administrative complaint, complainants alleged that respondent Judges rendered unjust decisions, which unduly deprived them of their 39-hectare property, when the subject of the case before them is only limited to 39,000 sq.m., more or less. An excerpt of the administrative complaint is hereby reproduced, thus:
9. Dahil sa hindi makatarungang Decision ni Judge Pascua at ito ay sinang ayunan buong buo ng Resolution ni Judge Tuvera, ang aming 39 hectares na pag aari ay tinangal ni Judge Pascua at Judge Tuvera sa kanilang mga maling Decision at Resolution nas (sic) as per Pre Trial Order ay limitado lamang sa 39,000 sq m na claim ng mga Plaintiffs subalit pati na ang aming 39 hectares ay kanilang binalewala ng walang DUE PROCESS.
PRAYER
Aming pong hinihiling na mabigyan ng karampatang parusa sina Judge Bonifacio Pascua at Judge [Purificacion] A. Baring Tuvera at ang aming 39 hectares na [hindi] kasama sa kaso ay maibalik sa amin. 12
In his Comment, 13 Judge Pascua interposed the following counter-arguments, to wit: AScHCD
(1) Complainants failed to allege with particularity how respondent Judges rendered unjust decisions. Other than stating that they were deprived of their 39-hectare property, complainants did not establish the commission of fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith on the part of respondent Judges.
(2) The assailed Decision dated January 21, 2019 was based on all the pieces of evidence adduced during the trial and after taking into account all the relevant jurisprudence on the legal and factual issues joined by the parties.
(3) It is apparent that the purpose of the present complaint is to secure a favorable decision of the civil case when there is a remedy of appeal available to complainants to question the adverse decision.
(4) The filing of the administrative complaint constitutes an undue and unwarranted harassment which should not be countenanced.
Likewise, in her Comment, 14 Judge Baring Tuvera manifested that she is adapting the comment and answer of her co-respondent Judge Pascua and proffered the following counter-arguments:
(1) That if indeed the Decision is unjust, the proper remedy of complainants is to file an appeal rather than the present administrative complaint.
(2) That she reinstated the questioned RTC Decision on the ground that she agreed with the conclusion Judge Pascua drew from the facts of the case. She also anchored her Resolution on the understanding that the law that governs the case is Commonwealth Act No. 1120 of 1904, considering that the subject property was a friar land within the San Francisco de Malabon Estate;
(3) That if Judge Pascua committed a mistake in his Decision and she (Judge Baring Tuvera) likewise committed a mistake in upholding it through the assailed Resolution, the mistakes in judgment should have been ventilated via an appeal.
(4) That the prayer of complainants that they be declared as owners of the 39-hectare property is a sneaky move designed to acquire ownership over the subject property without resorting to the mode of acquisition of ownership over a friar land, as provided by law.
(5) That this administrative complaint is nothing but a harassment suit.
The Court's Ruling
The administrative complaint is bereft of merit.
As the factual milieu of this case reveal, complainants claim to be the registered owners of parcels of land measuring 442,382 sq.m. covered under TCT No. (T-203617) T-94236. During pre-trial, the RTC clarified that the court will only resolve the validity of the parties' respective titles only insofar as the parcels of land located in Brgy. Conchu, Trece Martires City, with an aggregate area of 39,545.30 sq.m. are concerned. 15 In its Decision, the RTC rendered a ruling adverse to complainants and declared the nullification of TCT No. (T-2031617) T-94236 and/or its derivatives. Thus, herein complainants bewail that the unjust and erroneous decisions of respondent Judges deprived them of their 39-hectare property, when the subject property of the civil case filed by Ong and Santos for quieting of title is only 39,000 sq.m. or 3.9 hectares.
Herein complainants prayed that respondent Judges be disciplined for their unjust (hindi makatarungan) decision and that complainants' ownership over the subject 39-hectare property be reinstated. While the issue of reinstatement of ownership over the subject parcel of land is indeed contentious, the present administrative proceeding is not the proper forum in the resolution thereof. Thus, the Court will only determine whether respondent Judges rendered unjust decisions and whether they shall be held administratively liable in the commission thereof if duly proven.
A judge, in the exercise of his or her judicial function, cannot be made administratively liable by rendering an unjust and/or erroneous judgment, as perceived by the aggrieved party. Notably, the present complaint is written in the Filipino language and complainants merely alleged that respondent Judges rendered unjust and erroneous decisions or "hindi makatarungan at mga maling Decision."
What is considered administratively punishable as gross misconduct and also deemed as a serious criminal offense is the act of knowingly rendering an unjust decision, which is penalized under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code. 16 Again, in this case, complainants merely alleged that the decision rendered by respondent Judges were unjust or "hindi makatarungan." The complaint is devoid of any allegation that such purportedly unjust decision was rendered knowingly by respondent Judges.
Nonetheless, assuming that complainants intended to charge respondent Judges with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, the charge now equates to a criminal offense. As such, the culpability of respondent Judges must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the quantum of proof in criminal cases, and not by substantial evidence, as required in administrative proceedings. 17 Complainants must be able to prove that respondent Judges consciously rendered an unjust judgment with the deliberate intent to cause an injustice. Failure to do so would mean the dismissal of the case. AcICHD
In this case, complainants failed to present proof, so much so to allege in their complaint that the decisions of respondent Judges were rendered with conscious, malicious, and deliberate intent to commit an injustice.
Even granting that respondent Judges erred in their respective decision and resolution, jurisprudence is replete with administrative cases which clearly established that errors, if ever committed by any judge in the exercise of his or her judicial function, cannot be rectified through an administrative proceeding, rather, such error, if any, should be assailed through other available judicial remedies such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari. 18 Resorting to an administrative disciplinary action prior to the exhaustion of judicial remedies or the final resolution of the judicial issues is considered an abuse of court processes. 19
Here, complainants prematurely filed the present complaint since the final resolution of the civil case was not yet attained at the time of filing of the same. Complainants' omnibus motion dated January 22, 2020, which prayed for the inhibition of Judge Baring Tuvera and assailed the Resolution dated December 26, 2019 rendered by the latter, was still pending before the RTC when the administrative complaint was filed before the Court.
Even if the complaint was filed after the last omnibus motion was resolved, there are other available legal remedies available to complainants instead of lodging an administrative case against respondent Judges, such as an appeal.
At any rate, a judge cannot be made culpable by committing an error of judgment or by taking the unpopular side of a controversial point of law or by failing to appreciate the pieces of evidence presented. Under the principle of judicial immunity, a judge is protected and insulated from being held civilly, criminally or administratively liable for rendering an erroneous decision in good faith. 20 As a matter of public policy, the doctrine of judicial immunity aims to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. 21 Thus, holding a judge administratively liable for every erroneous decision is nothing short of harassment and it is considered a blatant degradation of the judicial office.
In Re: Verified Complaint of AMA Land, Inc. Against Justices Bueser, et al. of the Court of Appeals, 22 the Court explained that:
[E]ven if the subject decision or portions thereof turn out to be erroneous, administrative liability will only attach upon proof that the actions of the respondent CA Justices were motivated by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred, or attended by fraud or corruption, which were not sufficiently shown to exist in this case. Neither was bias as well as partiality established. Acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice must be clearly shown before he can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. In the same vein, bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment or order is adverse to a party. 23
Simply put, error of judgment per se does not make a judge administratively liable. Administrative liability will only attach upon proof that respondent Judges were motivated by bad faith, malice, corruption, dishonesty or hatred or attended by fraud. 24 In the absence of showing to the contrary, it is presumed that the erroneous decision has been rendered in good faith.
In the present case, other than the fact that the decision was adverse to the interest of complainants, they markedly failed to impute bad faith or malice on the part of respondent Judges in their complaint. A perusal of the records shows that respondent Judges made an exhaustive discussion of their respective judgments based on applicable laws and jurisprudence and their own appreciation of the pieces of evidence on record. Thus, respondent Judges are presumed to have acted in good faith or to have rendered the questioned decisions in the regular performance of their office. Bad faith, malice or intent to commit an injustice cannot be inferred just because the judgment or order rendered is adverse to a party. 25
Adopting the foregoing disquisitions, it is clearly established that there is no legal and factual basis to hold respondent Judges administratively liable.
Furthermore, it has not escaped the attention of the Court that it has become complainants' ruse to move for the inhibition of the judge whose judgment or order is adverse to their interest. A careful evaluation of the records reveals that the motions for inhibition filed against both respondent Judges are identical and similarly worded. 26 Complainants imputed that both respondent Judges showed manifest bias and partiality to Ong and Santos by overlooking the discrepancies in the latter's evidence and for allegedly closing their eyes on the pieces of evidence presented by complainants. Not contented even after Judge Pascua inhibited himself from the proceedings and while the motion for inhibition against Judge Baring Tuvera was still pending, herein complainants initiated the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judges.
The irresponsible and indiscriminate filing of motions for inhibition and the present baseless and prematurely filed administrative charge cannot be countenanced as these do not only disrupt the orderly administration of justice, these are clear disrespect to the judicial officers and the judicial system. 27 A party cannot use these legal remedies to harass, intimidate or disparage our magistrates in the performance of their judicial functions just to get a favorable outcome in a case.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the Administrative Complaint against the Honorable Court of Appeals Associate Justice Bonifacio S. Pascua and Regional Trial Court Judge Purification A. Baring Tuvera for utter lack of merit." Carandang and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., on official leave. (8)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1Rollo, pp. 2-7.
2. RTC Decision. pp. 2-3; id. at 13-14.
3.Id. at 89-105.
4.Id. at 12-37.
5.Id. at 35.
6.Id. at 40-50.
7.Id. at 156-162.
8.Id. at 160
9.Id. at 296-326.
10.Id. at 163-181.
11.Id. at 182-210.
12.Id. at 3-4.
13.Id. at 215-231.
14.Id. at 357-367.
15.Id. at 8-11.
16. ARTICLE 204. Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
17. See In re: AMA Land, Inc., 729 Phil. 1, 7 (2014).
18. See Bautista v. Abdulwahid, 522 Phil. 390 (2006).
19. See Sps. Oliveros v. Sison, 591 Phil. 140 (2008).
20. See Santiago III v. Enriquez, Jr., 598 Phil. 482 (2009).
21. See Pabalan v. Guevarra, 165 Phil. 677 (1976).
22. 701 Phil. 462 (2013).
23.Id. at 469.
24. See Re. Ongjoco, 680 Phil. 467 (2012).
25. See Re: Leticia Fuentes, IPI No. 17-259-CA-J (Notice), March 13, 2018.
26. Omnibus Motion dated February 14, 2019, rollo, pp. 45-48; Omnibus Motion dated January 22, 2020; id. at 185-188.
27. See Umali v. Jr. Hernandez, 781 Phil. 375 (2016).