THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-3848-RTJ. March 13, 2013.]
CONGRESSMAN JOSE T. VILLAROSA, petitioner, vs. JUDGE MARIA THERESA DELA TORRE-YADAO [RETIRED], FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC-BRANCH 81, QUEZON CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2013, which reads as follows:
"A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-3848-RTJ (Congressman Jose T. Villarosa v. Judge Maria Theresa Dela Torre-Yadao [retired], former Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 81, Quezon City). — The case is about a judge who allegedly violated Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) by knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.
On February 3, 2006, respondent Judge Maria Theresa Dela Torre-Yadao (respondent) convicted Congressman Jose T. Villarosa (Villarosa) for Murder along with seven other co-accused. The Court of Appeals (CA), on automatic review, acquitted Villarosa and the four other co-accused.
Upon his release, Villarosa filed a complaint against respondent for allegedly knowingly rendering an unjust judgment pursuant to Article 204 of the RPC, claiming that the latter unjustly and deliberately disregarded the testimonial and documentary evidence he presented. The investigating prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
On petition for review, former Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Agnes Devanadera, in the Resolution dated March 1, 2010, reversed and set aside the investigating prosecutor's resolution declaring that there was probable cause to hold respondent liable for violating Article 204 of the RPC and thus directed the Quezon City Prosecutor to file the corresponding criminal Information against her. In the same resolution, the DOJ caused the Supreme Court and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to be furnished with a copy of its resolution for the latter's appropriate action. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that there was lack of due process when the DOJ failed to require her to file comment. HIEAcC
In its Memorandum dated January 10, 2012, the OCA held that, since the issue on whether Judge Yadao rendered an unjust judgment is both judicial and administrative in nature, only the Court can make a determination whether Judge Yadao indeed committed the act. The OCA emphasized that only the Supreme Court has exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowliest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. 1
In the Resolution dated March 14, 2012, the Court ordered the DOJ to cease and desist from taking further action in the criminal complaint against respondent docketed as I.S. 2008-1136. Instead, the Court treated the DOJ March 1, 2010 Resolution and the complaint filed by Villarosa as an administrative complaint against respondent and further directed Villarosa and the respondent to file their respective manifestations of their willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings submitted before the DOJ. Villarosa begged leave to submit a memorandum.
Meanwhile, on June 19, 2012, the Court received a copy of DOJ Resolution dated April 24, 2012 issued by Justice Secretary Leila M. De Lima which set aside the March 1, 2010 Resolution issued by former DOJ Secretary Devanadera, thereby dismissing the complaint against respondent.
After evaluation, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the case against respondent finding that there was no evidence to show that respondent was motivated by bad faith or ill motive in convicting Villarosa for the crime of murder. Villarosa failed to adduce evidence to prove his accusations against respondent. He did not even submit his memorandum, despite having been allowed to do so, to further substantiate his complaint against respondent. Incidentally, even the Honorable Secretary of the Department of Justice Leila De Lima, in dismissing the criminal complaint against respondent, declared that "there was no proof presented by Villarosa that bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose attended the rendition of the assailed judgment." ADSIaT
Furthermore, the OCA held that granting that respondent committed error in her judgment when the CA modified her ruling, such does not lead to a conclusion that her judgment was tainted by a malicious desire or hatred against Villarosa. It is well settled that a judge's failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. 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. 2
VIEWED FROM THE FOREGOING, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the OCA findings and recommendation.
Accordingly, the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment against respondent Judge Maria Theresa Dela Torre-Yadao, former Presiding Judge of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 81, is DISMISSED for lack of merit. (Velasco, Jr., J., on leave; Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 1429 dated March 12, 2013; Leonardo-De Castro, J., Additional Member, per Special Order No. 1430 dated March 12, 2013.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993, 221 SCRA 464, 467.
2.Salvador v. Judge Limsiaco, Jr., 519 Phil. 683, 687 (2006).