@de Guzman vs. Dy, Am No. rjt-03-1755 July 3, 2003

[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1755. July 3, 2003.
JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN (Ret.), Complainant, v. JUDGE AMALIA

F. DY, Regional Trial Court, Branch 213, Mandaluyong City, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Complainant Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr., a retired Regional Trial Court judge

and now a practicing lawyer, filed a verified complaint 1 charging. Judge Amalia
F. Dy, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch
213, with Grave and Serious Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Judiciary.
< Complainant Ret. Judge now a practicing lawyer, filed a verified complaint 1
charging, respondent Judge of RTC, with Grave and Serious Misconduct and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Judiciary.
>
Complainant avers that his services were engaged by Lourdes L. Reyes for the
purpose of filing a criminal complaint for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
against Emmanuel A. Cosico. Sometime in 1996, Cosico issued in favor of
Reyes four checks which were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. The parties
entered into an agreement whereby the South Rich Acres, Inc., Cosico’s
employer, shall redeem the dishonored checks from Reyes by conveying to her a
parcel of land on condition that the title thereto was free from any encumbrances.
In turn, Reyes promised to return the dishonored checks to Cosico. However,
upon learning that the land was mortgaged, Reyes filed the criminal complaint
against Cosico. The corresponding information was thereafter filed against
Cosico with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 59, which
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 81017.
In the meantime, Emmanuel Cosico filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque City, an action for specific performance, which was docketed as Civil
Case No. CV-00-0184, for the return of the four dishonored checks. His counsel
and father, Atty. Manuel M. Cosico, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong a motion to suspend the proceedings, on the ground of the
pendency of a prejudicial question in Civil Case No. CV-00-0184. The
Metropolitan Trial Court suspended the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 81017;
however, on motion for reconsideration of complainant, it set aside its order of
suspension and issued a warrant for the arrest of Cosico.
Cosico then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court of

Mandaluyong City, presided by respondent judge, and docketed as Civil Case
No. MC-00-1286. On November 10, 2000, respondent judge issued a Temporary
Restraining Order enjoining the arraignment of Cosico which was scheduled on
November 13, 2000. Thereafter, on February 9, 2001, respondent issued a writ
of preliminary injunction to restrain the arraignment set on February 12,
2001.chanrob1e
Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration and argued that, under Rule 111,
Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, one of the elements of a
prejudicial question is a previously instituted action involving an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action. The
motion was denied by respondent judge in an Order dated June 4, 2001. 2
<It happens when the reposndent judge denied his motion>s virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Hence, complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent judge

assailing her orders which are allegedly favorable to Atty. Cosico, who is her
"compadre" .
< complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent judge

"compadre", but the latter deny it>
In her Comment, 3 respondent judge denied that Atty. Cosico was her compadre
or that Atty. Cosico resorted to extra-legal means to obtain the orders dated
November 10, 2000 and February 9, 2001. She maintained that the said orders
were based on applicable substantive and remedial laws. The petition
for certiorari was filed in her court during the effectivity of the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Rule 111, Section 5 of which does not require that the civil
action be instituted ahead of the criminal action for a prejudicial question to arise.
Thus, she ruled that Civil Case No. CV-00-0184 raised a prejudicial question
which will affect the determination of the accused’s criminal liability in Criminal
Case No. 81017.
On November 27, 2002, the parties were required to manifest their willingness to
have the case submitted for resolution on the basis of the pleadings 4 filed, which
both complainant 5 and respondent 6 complied with.
After evaluation, the Court Administrator recommended that the instant complaint
be dismissed for lack of merit on the ground that the errors raised in the
complaint were judicial in nature, and that an administrative complaint is not the
appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a
judicial remedy exists and is readily available. 7
We agree.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by

substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. 8 In the absence of contrary
evidence as in this case, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent
has regularly performed his duties. 9 The Rules, even in an administrative case,
demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct
or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should
be derived from direct knowledge. 10 Before any member of the Judiciary can be
faulted, there should be due investigation and presentation of competent
evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character. 11
< In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by

substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint, >
The ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond
reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where the charges on which the removal is
sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, or incompetence. The
general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply. 12
For liability to attach, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the
performance of official duties must not only found to be erroneous but, most
importantly, it must be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty,
hatred or some other like motive. 13 Similarly, a judge will be held
administratively liable for rendering an unjust judgment — one which is contrary
to law or jurisprudence or is not supported by evidence — when he acts in bad
faith, malice, revenge or some other similar motive. 14 In other words, in order to
hold a judge liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be shown
beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment was made with a conscious and
deliberate intent to do an injustice. 15
< it must be established that she was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or
some other like motive >
In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any showing of wrongful, improper or
unlawful conduct on the part of respondent judge. Indeed, the charge against her
is based on nothing more than complainant’s suspicion that Atty. Cosico
"perhaps used ‘inducements other than legal that touched the heart and soul’ of
Judge Dy." 16 However, we can not give credence to charges based on mere
suspicion and speculation. 17
Even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent judge erred, the lapse
would be an error of judgment. A judge may not be administratively charged for
errors of judgment, in the absence of showing of any bad faith, malice or corrupt
purpose. 18 It is well-settled that judges can not be held to account criminally,
civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith. 19 If a
party is prejudiced by the orders of a judge, his remedy lies with the proper court
and not with the Office of the Court Administrator. 20
<Since in the case it not proven by the complainant, therefore the that judges can
not be held to account criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous
decision rendered in good faith >
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED

for lack of merit.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
< Complainant Ret. Judge now a practicing lawyer, filed a verified complaint 1
charging, respondent Judge of RTC, with Grave and Serious Misconduct and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Judiciary.
>
<It happens when the reposndent judge denied his motion>
< complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent judge
"compadre", but the latter deny it>
Issue: did the judge acted in bad faith?

< NO. it must be established that she was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred
or some other like motive >
<Since in the case it not proven and just a mere suspicion by the complainant,
therefore the that judge cannot be held to account criminally, civilly or
administratively for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith >

@de Guzman vs. Dy, Am No. rjt-03-1755 July 3, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

@de Guzman vs. Dy, Am No. rjt-03-1755 July 3, 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

@de Guzman vs. Dy, Am No. rjt-03-1755 July 3, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1755. July 3, 2003.

JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN (Ret.), Complainant, v. JUDGE AMALIA

Complainant Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr., a retired Regional Trial Court judge

Cosico then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court of

Hence, complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent judge

< complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent judge

In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by

< In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Issue: did the judge acted in bad faith?

You might also like