[OCA-IPI No. 05-2259-RTJ.
Federico R. Agcaoili v. Judge Clifton U. Ganay,
Branch 31, Regional Trial Court, La
Third Division
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 29, 2006
OCA-IPI No. 05-2259-RTJ (Federico R. Agcaoili v. Judge Clifton U. Ganay, Branch 31, Regional Trial Court, La Union and Judge Designate, Baguio City)
For consideration is the Report dated
In a Verified Complaint dated
Complainant cites as grounds for the instant complaint two allegedly questionable dispositions made by respondent Judge in two of the cases, specifically Civil Case No. 4750-R and Civil Case No. 5039-R.
In Civil Case No. 4750-R entitled "Baguio Country Club v. Ramon K. Ilusorio," complainant questions respondent judge's dismissal of the case on the ground that the counsels of the parties did not possess any special power of attorney to enter into a pre-trial from their clients who did not attend the pre-trial with the counsels. Complainant contends that the dismissal could have been avoided had respondent judge studied the records of the case because the same contained a copy of the Secretary's Certificate showing that the counsels were duly appointed to lawfully represent their clients at the pre-trial. Complainant suspects that respondent judge prevented the case from reaching trial stage to favor BCC's opponent, Ramon K. Ilusorio. Complainant however laments that he still had to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals to remedy respondent judge's wrong actuation.
In Civil Case No. 5039-R, an action for damages against Ramon K. Ilusorio for the alleged malicious rigging of the 6 November 1993 bidding for the long-time leases of the penthouse units of the BCC, complainant questions respondent judge's Decision dated 30 November 2004. Per the Decision, the complaint was dismissed on the grounds of prescription and lack of conflict of interest, and moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000,000.00 were awarded to Ramon K. Ilusorio by way of counterclaim, and P4,000,000.00 as temperate damages granted to Multinational Investment Corporation. Complainant contends that it was gross ignorance and grave error for respondent judge to find that Ramon K. Ilusorio is entitled to such award upon a finding that he had suffered besmirched reputation, mental anxiety, and sleepless nights merely as a consequence of his being haled to court.
Complainant further avers that respondent judge issued an Order
dated
In his Comment dated 29 June 2005, respondent judge elucidates that before handling the 13 cases involving the Ilusorio family feud and the BCC, he had been informed that the cases were proceeding at a turtle's pace and thus, he resolved to dispose of the cases differently. Moreover, he asserts that he regularly reports to the Court his actions on the cases.
He likewise maintains that in resolving the legal incidents in the cases, he did so without regard to who wins or loses. He only considers the evidence at hand. In fact, in 12 of the cases, BCC won in seven and in two of them, BCC was awarded P7,000,000.00 in damages and attorney's fees.
He further explains that he dismissed without prejudice Civil Case No. 4750-R because the lawyers who appeared in the pre-trial conference were there merely to ask for postponement. With respect to Civil Case No. 5039-R, he reasons that he disposed of the case as he saw and assessed it. Regarding BCC's Motion to Reduce Supersedeas Bond and Motion to Defer Issuance of Writ of Execution, he justifies the non-resolution of the legal incidents by reason of an injunction issued by the Court of Appeals.
In his Reply dated
The OCA in its Report dated
Citing Flores v. Abesamis,[1] the OCA held that since the two acts complained of are judicial in nature, they are insufficient to sustain the instant administrative charges. Settled is the rule that an administrative remedy is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available. 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.
With respect to the erroneous order authorizing the execution of a decision pending appeal, the OCA has not found convincing and competent proof that in issuing such order, respondent Judge was motivated by bad faith and other ill motives. For administrative liability to attach, it must be established that respondent was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other motive. In the absence of proof to the contrary, a defective or erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith.
Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the
facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Judge
Clifton U. Ganay of Branch 31 of the Regional Trial
Court of La Union and Judge-Designate of the
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court