EN BANC
|
CITY OF Complainant, - versus - JUDGE IRENEO LEE GAKO,
JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2111 (Formerly A.M. No. 05-2207-RTJ) Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,* CORONA,* CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NACHURA, J.:
Before the Court is an administrative
complaint filed by the City of Cebu against now retired Judge Ireneo Lee Gako,
Jr.[1] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Cebu City, for serious misconduct,
gross ignorance of the law, willful violation of rules and laws, judicial
interference, tolerating forum-shopping, and violation of the Code of Judicial
Ethics.
Following established procedure, the
Court initially referred the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation.[2] The
OCA later found the respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay in
deciding Civil Case No. CEB-29570, and for gross ignorance of the law, which is
tantamount to grave abuse of judicial authority, when he violated the doctrine
of non-interference in Civil Case No. 30684. The OCA, therefore, recommended
that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; the respondent
judge be fined P11,000.00 and be suspended without pay for 6 months; and
the motion to direct the respondent to compulsorily inhibit himself from all
cases pending in his court in which complainant is a party-litigant be denied
for being judicial in character.[3]
Subsequently, the Court designated
Court of Appeals Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas to further investigate
and evaluate the charges leveled against the respondent. As summarized by the
said Investigating Justice, the factual backdrop of the charges is as follows:
1) Serious
Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law on Two Counts
1.a) In Civil Case. No. CEB-26607: Spouses Roque and Fatima Ting vs. City of
Cebu, complainant charged respondent judge for having arrogated unto
himself the duty which pertains to that of a counsel, when respondent judge
called to the witness stand a certain Mr. Darza as witness of the court, when neither
parties’ lawyers in the said civil case were interested to present said person
as their witness. During the appointed hearing, respondent judge, by himself,
conducted the lengthy examination, without even making an offer of the purpose
for which the witness’ testimony is presented, while the counsels refused to propound
any question to the witness.
x x x x
1.b) The
2nd count under this charge of misconduct, etc., arose from the
proceedings in Civil Case No. CEB-29570:
Cebu Ports Authority (CPA) vs. City of
Complainant
additionally accused respondent judge of having “calculatingly failed” to take
judicial notice of a decided case [Philippine
Ports Authority (PPA) vs. City of Ilo-Ilo, G.R. No. 109791, July 14, 2003]
which the city invoked as case law for the dismissal of the complaint and, at
the same time, relied upon by plaintiff CPA to champion in the latter’s main
cause of action. Had the respondent judge considered the case with utmost
circumspection, he would have resolved the main issue at the earliest possible
time in the city’s favor, the main issue in the case of CPA v. Cebu City having
been squarely ruled upon already in the cited PPA case.
x x
x x
2) Willful
Violation of Rules and Laws, on Four (4) Counts including Two (2) Counts of
Judicial Interference.
This
involves four distinct actions perpetrated in separate incidents involving four
cases, namely:
2.a)
Civil Case No. CEB-26066: Roy Feliciano,
et al. vs. City of
During
the hearing for the application of TRO, Feliciano, one of the plaintiffs, who took
the witness stand, admitted in open court their occupancy of the sidewalk. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines
nuisance as any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property,
or anything else which, among others, obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street. The law allows the summary demolition
or removal of the structures considered as public nuisance. Thus, on the basis of plaintiff’s judicial
admission, that they are occupying a sidewalk, the city of
It
is further complained that respondent judge in this Feliciano case granted plaintiffs’ demand to be relocated absent
any law to support therefor or lacking proof in plaintiffs’ pleadings that they
were qualified and not disqualified beneficiaries for the relocation and
settlement, as required under Sections 16 and 17 of Republic Act. No. 7279;
that the afore-cited laws were completely disregarded by the respondent judge,
as if they never exist. It is advanced that the act of respondent judge of
tolerating plaintiffs’ violation of certain requirement of the law amounts to
his own violation thereof.
x x
x x
2.b) Civil
Case No. CEB-29550: Colon Transport Terminal, represented by its Operator,
Engr. Renato C. Asegurado, and Inter Urban PUV Terminal, represented by its
Operator, Jessie S. Lasaleta, vs.
Cebu City Police Traffic Group, et al. (For:
Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Mandatory Injunction), referred to
hereinafter as, first case.
Civil Case No. CEB-29730: Mr. Jessie S.
Lasaleta, doing business under the trade name and style Inter Urban PUV
Terminal, vs. City of Cebu, et
al. (For: Declaration of Nullity
of City Ordinance No. 1958, as amended with Prayer for Permanent Injunction), second
case for brevity.
2.c)
Civil Case No. CEB-30411: Simplicio
Giltendez, doing business under the name and style
Believing that Mr. Lasaleta, the
plaintiff in the second case, is guilty of forum-shopping, which position is
bolstered by his admission in the “Verification and Certification” attached to
his complaint in the second case, a portion of which states that he reserves to
withdraw his name in the first case after the filing of the second, Cebu City
posits that the first and second case, or at least one of them should have been
dismissed outright by respondent judge, failing which, judge Gako is guilty of
willfully violating the rules proscribing forum shopping and for tolerating an
act which amounts to direct contempt of court.
The city asserts that this issue was raised in its Motion for Summary
Judgment in the foregoing consolidated terminal cases.
x x
x x
Referring
to the third terminal case, additional charge is posed by complainant against
the judge in granting plaintiff’s application for TRO, being unfounded and
without legal basis. Cebu City, as defendant therein, contended that plaintiff
in said case was operating without a business permit, did not comply with the
requirements of the local ordinance regulating the operation of the terminal,
did not have a Memorandum of Agreement with the city to operate as such, and
did not possess the necessary building permit for the structures that were
being used in the operation of his business.
Judge Gako’s act of issuing TRO, therefore, constitutes another
violation of the provisions concerning the requirement of granting injunctive
relief under the Rules of Court.
Likewise, the above Order of
respondent judge, granting the application for a TRO, also makes him guilty of
interference and total disrespect of what the Court of Appeals (CA) has decided
in CA-G.R. SP No. 74053. The CA in
this cited case upheld the validity of Ordinance No. 1837. In that CA decision, it was acknowledged that
the city of
x x x x
2.d) Civil Case No. CEB-30684: Cebu 3rd
District V-Hire Operators & Drivers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, represented
by Gina Virgilia A. Sanchez, vs. City of Cebu, et al. (For Declaration of
Unconstitutionality of City Ordinance No. 1958, Mandamus with Injunction, and
Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order).
This is the fourth count, of
Relevant to this case is Civil Case No. CEB-27643: Cebu 3rd
District V-Hire Operators & Drivers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, represented
by Msgr. Jose Diapen, vs. City
Counsel of Cebu City, et al. (For Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance
of TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction), which was raffled to Branch 58,
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, where plaintiff’s applications for TRO and
Writ of Preliminary Injunction were denied by the presiding judge therein, in
the Orders dated 3 July 2002 and 21 October 2002. The main case being one for Injunction, the
mentioned orders of denial had the effect of disposing the same, and plaintiff
neither having appealed therefrom nor questioned said orders, the same already became
final and executory.
Here, it is contended by Cebu City
that despite its effort to bring this fact to the attention of respondent
judge, the latter, in open display of judicial arrogance, interfered with these
orders of a coordinate and co-equal court by giving due course to Civil Case No. CEB-30684, a case filed
in 2004 subsequent to CEB-27643. Respondent’s
act herein likewise constitutes disrespect of a final ruling of the Court of
Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 74053). Worse, said complainant, Judge Gako granted
plaintiff’s application of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
(3) Other Violations.
Complainant is referring to the
alleged practice of respondent judge of resorting to “injunction-for-sale” with
the active meddling of a family member; allowing parties to write decisions for
him; and failure to rule on Cebu City’s motions for Consolidation and Summary
Judgment in the transport cases above-mentioned while allowing the other party
to present evidence to prove damages, in effect, proceeding to trial proper
without pre-trial.
x x x x
(4) Violation of the Code of
Judicial Ethics.
Complainant
claims that the foregoing acts of respondent also infringe various canons in
the Code of Judicial Conduct, viz.:
In
the Ting
case above, Civil Case No. CEB-26607,
in addition to being constitutive of willful misconduct and gross ignorance of
the law, the act of respondent judge in acting as litigant’s lawyer, by
obtaining the testimony of a person despite the fact that both counsels were
not interested in introducing said person as their witness; and the judge’s act
of conducting, by himself, the direct examination thereof, violate Canon 2, Rule
2.01. of the Code of Judicial Conduct: “A
judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”; and Canon 3 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics: “A judge’s official
conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal
behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties,
but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.”
Likewise,
in the CPA case, Civil Case No.
CEB-29570, respondent judge’s actuation of reneging to his declaration to
resolve the case within a specified period infringes Canon 1, Rule 1.02 of the
same Code: “A judge should administer
justice impartially and without delay.”
Finally,
to complainant, all of the foregoing charges relative to the comportment of
respondent judge during the proceedings in the cited cases, which earn him the charges
of Serious Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law, Willful Violation of
Rules and Laws, Judicial Interference on several counts, demonstrate grave
incompetence; running afoul to Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the cited Code: “A judge should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence.”
x x x x [4]
After weighing the arguments and the
evidence of the parties, the Investigating Justice found the respondent judge
liable only for undue delay in deciding Civil Case No. CEB-29570, and recommended
the following:
WHEREFORE,
the above-discussed circumstances considered, the undersigned respectfully
recommends that Judge Ireneo Lee Gako,
As
regards the motion for respondent’s inhibition, Judge Ireneo Lee Gako is
advised to voluntarily inhibit from hearing or taking cognizance of the cases
pending before him, where complainant is a party-litigant; only with respect to
those cases involved in this administrative case.
x x x x[5]
The Court upholds the findings and
conclusions of the Investigating Justice, but modifies the recommended penalty.
On
the charge that the respondent judge unduly arrogated unto himself the duty of
a counsel, in Civil Case No. CEB-26607, by calling a witness to the stand and
conducting the latter’s direct testimony even if the respective counsels were
not interested or did not intend to present said person as their witness, the
Court finds nothing irregular in the same. Revealed in the hearings of the said
case is that the respondent judge intended to obtain enlightenment from the
said witness, the project director of one of the signatories to the contract being
litigated.[6] In
not a few cases, this Court has declared that the trial judge, if he is not
satisfied after hearing all the evidence adduced by the parties, may, in the
exercise of sound discretion, on his own motion and in furtherance of justice,
call additional witnesses or recall some or the same witnesses for the purpose
of questioning them himself to enlighten him on particular facts or issues
involved in the case.[7]
As to the four charges of willful violation of laws and rules,
the Court finds them without merit. The complainant failed to clearly prove
error or ill will on the part of the respondent judge in denying the motion to
dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-26066. Granting that respondent erred in denying the
motion, the complainant should have appealed or petitioned for the issuance of
a writ of certiorari. Fundamental is the rule that where the
remedies of appeal and/or certiorari
are available, recourse to an administrative complaint for the correction of
actions of a judge perceived to have gone beyond the norms of propriety is improper.[8]
We
extend the same treatment to the other charges leveled against the respondent
particularly those involving his acts in Civil Case Nos. CEB-29550, CEB-29730, CEB-30411
and CEB-30684. The Court finds neither malicious nor corrupt motive in
respondent’s non-dismissal of Civil Case Nos. CEB-29550 and CEB-29730 on
account of forum shopping. No viciousness can further be presumed from
respondent judge’s issuance of a temporary restraining order in Civil Case No.
CEB-30411, considering that the grant of the injunctive relief in that case was
preceded by a thorough consideration of the positions of the parties after the
conduct of a hearing.[9] On
the charges of judicial interference and disrespect towards a decision of the appellate
court, specifically those involving Civil Case Nos. CEB-30411 and CEB-30684, we
find the same unavailing. The city ordinance being assailed in these civil cases,
as shown by the parties’ pleadings, is different from those in the earlier 2002
case (Civil Case No. CEB-27643) and in the CA decision alleged to have been
interfered with.[10] With
regard to the respondent judge’s failure to rule on complainant’s motion for
consolidation and summary judgment, the facts and circumstances are inadequate
to conclude that there was irregularity or misconduct in the said act.
We note at this point that, for liability to
attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order of the judge must not only
be erroneous, but most importantly, its issuance is motivated by bad faith,
dishonesty, hatred or some other similar motives; because mere error of judgment
is not a ground for disciplinary proceedings.[11] To follow a different rule will mean a deluge
of complaints, legitimate or otherwise, and our magistrates will be immersed in
answering charges against them rather than performing their judicial functions.
As we said earlier, appropriate judicial remedies are available to the complainant—an
appeal or a petition for certiorari
to assail the allegedly erroneous orders; hence, recourse to an administrative
action against the judge is improper.
As
to the “other violations”—the purported “injunction-for-sale” and the writing
of decisions by the parties themselves, we dismiss the accusations for being
hearsay. Other than the bare allegations of the complainant, no evidence has
been introduced to support the charges. The presumption of regularity in the respondent’s
performance of his official duties remains.
The
Court, nonetheless, finds respondent to have transgressed Canon 3[12]
of the Code of Judicial Conduct when he did not resolve Civil Case No.
CEB-29570 within the constitutionally mandated time frame. His insistence
that his decision was not delayed
because a settlement between the parties was imminent, thus, he need not render
a decision, does not persuade the Court. The records show that on
The records, nevertheless, are devoid
of any order from the respondent judge, from P25M to the defendant to buy peace.[14]
Taking into consideration the 90-day period to decide the case,[15] we
conclude that the respondent judge should have resolved it within
Section
9(1), Rule 140[16] of the
Rules of Court classifies “undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in
transmitting the records of a case” as a less serious charge, which warrants any
of the sanctions in Section 11(B) of the same rule—
1. Suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more
than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more
than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
As aforesaid, the Investigating Justice,
in this case, recommended the penalty of suspension for 2 months without salary
and other benefits. The Court cannot, however, adopt the said recommended
penalty considering that the respondent already retired from the judiciary on
Were it not for his retirement, we
would have been inclined to adopt the heavier penalty of suspension in view of
our previous warnings to him not to commit further infraction.[18] In
lieu thereof, the Court imposes a fine of P40,000.00 on the respondent. The
fine that we impose shall then be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Incidentally,
during the pendency of this case, complainant by motion[19]
sought an order from this Court directing respondent judge to inhibit himself
from handling all the pending cases in his branch in which the complainant is a
party-litigant. In view, however, of the respondent’s retirement, this issue
has already become moot and academic.
As a final note, we reiterate our incessant
reminder that all members of the bench should comport themselves blamelessly in
order to advance public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
WHEREFORE, retired
Judge Ireneo Lee Gako of the P40,000.00)
to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
On leave MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
|
On leave RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
|
ADOLFO S. AZC Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
|
RUBEN T.
REYES Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
* On leave.
[1] The respondent judge retired from
the judiciary on
[2] Rollo, p. 219.
[3]
[4] Report and Recommendation (In Re:
Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2207-RTJ), pp. 2-11.
[5]
[6]
[7] People v. Velasco, 367 Phil. 191, 208 (1999); Arce v. Arce, 106 Phil. 630, 634-635 (1959);
[8] Officers and Members of the Integrated Bar of the
[9] Rollo, pp. 94-96; Annex “I” of the Complaint.
[10] See
rollo, pp. 26, 154 and 179, in which the parties disclosed in their
pleadings the various subjects of the ordinances being questioned.
[11] Villanueva-Fabella v. Lee, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1518,
[12] Specifically, Rule 3.05, which
states: “A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide
cases within the required periods.”
[13] Rollo,
pp. 87, 140.
[14]
[15] CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1).
[16] As amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC,
[17] See Cabarloc v. Cabusora, 401 Phil. 376,
385 (2000).
[18] In Rallos v. Judge Lee Gako, Jr., 385 Phil. 4 (2000), respondent was held
guilty of grave abuse of authority and partiality aggravated by dishonesty for
which he is ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00. In Zamora v. Judge Gako, Jr., 398
Phil. 60 (2000), he was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and hence
suspended for 3 months without pay. And in Lagcao
v. Gako, Jr., A.M. NO. RTJ-04-1840, August 2, 2007, 529 SCRA 55, he was
found guilty of grave abuse of authority for defying a decision of a higher
court and was ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00 to be deducted from
his retirement benefits.
[19] Rollo, pp. 222-233.