In the very recent case of EDGARDO D. AREOLA (a.k.a. MOHAMMAD KAHDAFFY) vs. JUDGE BAYANI Y. ILANO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Antipolo City, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2163 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2717-RTJ), February 18, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court reiterated important doctrinal pronouncements which I wish to reproduce here, for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog. Thus:
1. “In the Memorandum dated January 8, 2009, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), clarified that the fact of death of the respondent during the pendency of the case does not render the case moot and academic. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. If innocent, respondent merits vindication of his name and integrity; if guilty, he deserves to receive the correspondent censure and penalty proper and imposable under the situation.”
2. “After a perusal of the records, we find complainant’s charges against respondent Judge without basis. The orders which were adverse to the complainant pertained to the adjudicative function of respondent Judge. As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. In the instant case, the administrative complaint was obviously resorted to when complainant failed to obtain the favorable action he wanted from the court. It must be stressed that the filing of an administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless issued or rendered with ill motive. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. In the instant case, there is no proof that the respondent Judge was moved by bad faith when he issued the alleged erroneous orders. Needless to state, bare allegations of bias and partiality will not suffice. There must be clear and convincing proof to overcome the presumption that the judge dispensed justice according to law and evidence, without fear or favor”.
3. “All these notwithstanding, the Court can not gloss over the fact that respondent Judge was remiss in his duty for his failure to resolve the pending motion for reconsideration with dispatch. Under the Constitution, trial judges are given only ninety (90) days from the filing of the last pleading within which to resolve the matter at hand. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, likewise, enunciates that judges should administer justice without delay and dispose of the court’s business promptly within the period prescribed by law. When respondent Judge took over the case, the motion for reconsideration had already been long pending and several motions were filed for its urgent resolution. Respondent Judge acted on said motion only after five (5) months from the time the case was assigned to him. Unfortunately, respondent Judge’s explanation on this matter is wanting as he failed to file any comment on the charges hurled against him”.
