[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2444-RTJ.
ATTY. NIMFA E. SILVESTRE-PINEDA v. JUDGE AMOR A. REYES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43,
First Division
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2444-RTJ (Atty. Nimfa E. Silvestre-Pineda v. Judge Amor A. Reyes, Regional Trial Court, Branch 43,
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
1. COMPLAINT dated
Complainant avers that she is the counsel of one Danilo C. Casasola who is the petitioner in the case
entitled "In the Matter of Guardianship/Administratorship
Over the Person and Properties of
Instead of an order however, complainant received on
Complainant further avers that when she asked for [sic] the court copies of the entire records of the case in view of her plan of filing this complaint, she was surprised to find out that an Order dated April 21, 2005 denying her Motion for Reconsideration (With Motion to Inhibit) was already issued by the Court but as of the date of the preparation of the present complaint, May 6, 2005, she had not yet received her copy of said April 21, 2005 Order. Complainant also brands as totally false the statement made by the court in the said order that "when the parties herein were all called by the court to a conference, the court has manifested its intention to an expeditious resolution of the petition. Petitioner and respondents agreed to this and as such respondent impliedly waived the presentation of its evidence." She adds that this [is] a last ditch effort on the part of the respondent to exculpate herself and contends that if there was indeed such an agreement between the parties to submit the case for decision by the court, how come such matter was never mentioned in the assailed decision when all the other phases in the development of the case were thoroughly detailed and narrated in the Decision. Complainant finds it questionable that respondent failed to state that she was deciding the case based on petitioner's evidence as agreed upon by the parties and that the petitioner is adopting the evidence so far adduced. She contends that when respondent told the parties to wait for her order, they considered it to be referring to the Omnibus Motion filed by the petitioner which in fine would define whether the court would appoint a guardian ad litem and not the disposition of the entire case absent any evidence. She also considers as grave abuse of discretion on respondent['s] part to consider as basis in dismissing the petition the allegation in the Opposition of the proposed ward that "although, afflicted with arthritis she could still manage her properties and will never be an easy prey for deceit and exploitation."
Finally, complainant also finds respondent's act of issuing the April 21, 2005 Order irregular considering the Motion to Inhibit complainant filed with her Motion for Reconsideration.
With all the foregoing, complainant contends that respondent displayed ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion and failed to promptly act on matters pending before her court which are all contrary to what [R]ule 3.01 Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct demands that "a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence."
2. COMMENT dated
Respondent Judge states at the outset that she is not the regular judge of Branch 43. She is the permanent judge of Branch 21 and her pair sala is Branch 22, RTC Manila. She states that she expeditiously disposes cases not only on her branch but also of the branch to which she has been delegated by this Court. She claims that Branch 43 has been vacant for almost two (2) years and she has reduced the docket of said Branch from 263 to only 6 cases which surprised Judge Geronilla who was the judge permanently appointed to the said sala.
With respect to the dismissal of the subject petition for
guardianship, she claims that she stands firm in her decision which was arrived
at after hearing the evidence of the petitioner, Danilo
Casasola and his witness Tomas Garcia, Jr., the Barangay Chairman of Brgy. 130,
Zone 11, District I,
She thus denies all the charges imputed against her and claims that complainant is just disgruntled by the dismissal of the guardianship proceedings because she herself was interested to be appointed as guardian of Asuncion Vda. De Casasola as may be gleaned from her letter which is "Annex B" of the Omnibus Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem and to Cite Respondents in Contempt filed by the complainant as counsel for the petitioner, a copy of which was attached to this administrative complaint.
As regards the quotation of the portion of the affirmative defense respecting the competency of the proposed ward, respondent justifies the same to have been made purposely to get a clearer and more stable stand to lay out the position of the oppositor. She explains that with the knowledge that the parties are related and belong to one family, she deemed it proper to accelerate the proceedings because if lengthened, it would only aggravate the relations in the family not to mention the fact that the proposed ward, who is already an octogenarian, insisted that she could properly manage her affairs.
As to the alleged delay in furnishing complainant copies of the decision and order, respondent Judge emphasizes that the decision and order were released during Christmas season and aftermath of the same respectively.
With respect to her move of still acting on the Motion for Reconsideration despite the prayer for her inhibition, respondent quotes the portion of her Order dealing on the same matter which basically points out that mere suspicion that a judge is partial to a party is not enough to disqualify a judge and that acts of the litigants who for any conceivable reason seek to disqualify a judge for their own purpose under a plea of bias, partiality, prejudice or pre-judgment cannot be tolerated.
As a final point, respondent asseverates that complainant should not have resorted to the filing [of] this complaint but should have pursued her stand up to the Supreme Court if her appeal, now pending before the Court of Appeals proved futile. She adds that this complaint is purely and simply aimed at hindering her application to a higher position.
EVALUATION: In her Comment dated
Although it may be contended that the issue raised in the present complaint does not really concern the judicial wisdom of the dismissal of the petition for guardianship but the manner it was carried out which would place the issue within the ambit of administrative proceedings, still, we are not persuaded. In the present IPI, complainant basically questions respondent's act of issuing a decision, which completely disposed of Spl. Proc. No. 04-108906 without resolving first the pending incidents therein and without hearing fully the evidence for the adverse party. In accelerating thus the proceeding and disregarding the usual procedural flow of presentation of evidence as well [as] her non-resolution of the pending motions in view of rendering a final decision, respondent is being questioned. We find these actions to be part of the exercise of her judicial discretion, the propriety and soundness of which only the higher courts can rule upon, as these actions pertain to how she appreciated the evidence before her and the disposition of the entire proceedings itself.
The other charges and allegations of complainant are likewise dismissible for failure to substantiate the same. In particular, we cannot agree with complainant in her assertion that respondent failed to promptly act on matters pending before the court considering that it took respondent almost six months to render her decision from the time the last hearing on the case was had. Sustaining her would mean allowing her to base her charge on a matter which she herself questions. As there is no reckoning point to determine the period within which respondent should have rendered her decision, then there is no basis for a finding that respondent is guilty of delay.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint against Judge Amor A. Reyes be DISMISSED for having been filed prematurely.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.
Settled is the rule that errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies - disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, and an inquiry into their administrative liability arising from judicial acts may be made only after other available remedies have been settled.[1]
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Amor A. Reyes is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division