FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 8204. November 28, 2019.]
ANATALIA TRASMONTE, complainant, vs.JUDGE RAMON G. CODILLA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 28, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8204 (Anatalia Trasmonte v. Judge Ramon G. Codilla, Jr.). — For resolution is the instant administrative complaint 1 filed by Anatalia Trasmonte (complainant) against respondent Judge Ramon G. Codilla, Jr., Presiding Judge, Branch 19, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority, relative to Civil Case No. 31346 entitled "Heirs of Bienvenido Laspinas v. Anatalia Trasmonte."
To recapitulate, in a Complaint for mandatory injunction for the release of landowner's compensation under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), with prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and cancellation of encumbrances on certificates of title, Heirs of Bienvenido Laspinas (plaintiffs in the subject case) alleged that at the time of the death of their predecessor-in-interest, he left a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. FV-27 which was earlier subjected to the CARP under its Voluntary Offer to Sale (VOS) scheme. The landowner's compensation in the amount of P2,243,886.86 was then deposited by the Land Bank of the Philippines per Certification dated August 20, 2001. The subject land was eventually distributed to qualified farmers-beneficiaries. However, Land Bank refused to release the landowner's compensation by reason of certain encumbrances annotated in the titles. HSCATc
Complainant Trasmonte (one of the private defendants in the subject case) filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) the Special Agrarian Court has no jurisdiction over the action as it does not involve tenancy relations or the determination of just compensation; (2) improper venue; and (3) non-compliance with the rules on non-forum shopping.
In the assailed Order dated March 3, 2006, respondent Judge Ramon G. Codilla, Jr. ordered Land Bank to release to the plaintiffs the amount intended for just compensation, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, defendant Land Bank is hereby ordered to release to the plaintiffs the amount deposited intended for just compensation in the sum of P2,243,886.00 plus interest. 2
Aggrieved, before the Court of Appeals, complainant filed a petition for certiorari.
On December 13, 2007, the appellate court granted the petition. It reversed and set aside the Order dated March 3, 2006 of the court a quo. The appellate court held that the assailed order of the court a quo violated the standards set by the Constitution, because it essentially disposed of the case on the merits without conducting a full-blown trial which deprived petitioners the opportunity to adduce evidence in their defense.
On the basis of the ruling of the appellate court, alleging gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint against Judge Codilla.
The complaint is dismissed for being judicial in nature.
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. The acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, no matter how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith. 3
As early as the case of Flores v. Abesamis, 4 the Court expounded that:
As everyone knows, 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 against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e., error in appreciation or admission of evidence, or in construction or application of procedural or substantive law or legal principle) include a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition of a judgment or final order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary remedies against error or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character (i.e., whimsical, capricious, despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are inter alia the special civil action of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a petition for change of venue, as the case may be. EHaASD
Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed. 5
In the instant administrative complaint, records reveal that the alleged error attributed to Judge Codilla pertains to the exercise of his adjudicative functions. Thus, the issue is a judicial matter that is beyond the realm of an administrative proceeding. It must be stressed that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for aberrant acts allegedly committed by a Judge. Moreover, complainant failed to offer any proof that in issuing the assailed Order dated March 3, 2006 in Civil Case No. 31346, Judge Codilla was acting in bad faith and unduly favoring the private respondents. Bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party.
It is a matter of public policy that in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. For a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he or she renders. 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 or her judgment. 6
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Judge Ramon G. Codilla, Jr., Presiding Judge, Branch 19, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, for being judicial in nature. IDTSEH
SO ORDERED." Caguioa, J., on official leave. Inting, J., additional member per Special Order No. 2726.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13.
2.Rollo, p. 52.
3.Biado v. Brawner-Cualing, A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-2792-MTJ), February 15, 2017, 817 SCRA 447, 454.
4. 341 Phil. 299 (1997).
5.Id. at 312-313.
6.Atty. Velasco v. Judge Madrona, Regional Trial Court, Branch 260, Parañaque City, A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1997-RTJ, February 2, 2005 (Resolution).