[OCA-IPI No. 05-93-CA-J. January 31, 2006]

TOMAS Y. TAN vs. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH (9th) DIVISION

En Banc

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court dated JAN. 31, 2006

OCA-IPI No. 05-93-CA-J (Tomas Y. Tan vs. Chairman and Members of the Court of Appeals, Ninth (9th) Division)

This treats of the instant Verified Complaint dated 2 December 2005 filed by Tomas Y. Tan, president of PHESCHEM INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (PHESCHEM), charging Associate Justices Danilo B. Pine, Marina L. Buzon and Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok of the Court of Appeals of gross ignorance of the law relative to a case decided by them as members of the Ninth Division.

PHESCHEM is the private respondent in the case entitled, "Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association, Inc., v. Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA), Pheschem Industrial Corporation and Philippine Coast Guard," docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP No. 88446.  The case is a Petition for Review filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by petitioner Philippine Petroleum Sea Transport Association (PPSTA), wherein certain orders of the Office of the President and is not a party to the case below.

Complainant avers that he filed a Comment before the Court of Appeals seeking the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that PPSTA committed forum-shopping as it had a pending second motion for reconsideration before the Office of the President when it filed the petition before the appellate court, and that it was not a party to the case below.

Complainant maintains that the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals ignored his arguments when with Justice Pine as ponente, it ruled in favor of PPSTA on 20 October 2005.  He points out that the aforesaid Associate Justices of the Court o[ Appeals exhibited gross ignorance of the law when they gave due course to and granted PPSTA's petition for review, as said act was not only in violation of the rule against forum-shopping but also clearly devoid of merit PPSTA allegedly was not a proper party to the case.

The Court resolves to dismiss the complaint.

The Court holds that the filing of the instant administrative complaint is premature.  There is a pending motion for reconsideration of the decision of the appellate court.  It precisely seeks the rectification of any error which the appellate court justices may have committed.  Under the circumstances, the dropping of the administrative complaint is inexorable.  An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available.[1]

More fundamentally, the act complained of pertains to the justices' exercise of their judicial functions and, as such, is not subject to the Court's disciplinary power unless committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith, which exception complainant has neither shown nor proven.[2]

WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Clerk of Court


[1] 1Cordero v. Enriquez, A.M. No. CA-04-36, 18 February 2004, 423 SCRA 181, 186; Mendova v. Afable, 441 Phil. 694, 701(2002).

[2] Atty. Quinto v. Judge Vios, MTC Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1551, May 21, 2004, 429 SCRA 1.