Boquiren v. Del Rosario-Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Felixberto N. Boquiren, counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 111 (an ejectment suit), filed an administrative complaint against Judge Emperatriz del Rosario-Cruz and Atty. Melinda D. Gatdula (Clerk of Court) for misconduct, partiality, nonfeasance, dereliction of duty, and ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from the dismissal of the ejectment suit by Judge Cruz due to lack of cause of action, which Atty. Boquiren appealed. Atty. Saturnino V. Bactad, the defendant's counsel, was also charged with false representation and employing schemes to defeat the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Procedural History: The administrative case was initially dismissed without prejudice on January 26, 1994, as the underlying Civil Case No. 111 was on appeal. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Boquiren. Subsequently, on March 2, 1994, the Court dismissed the complaint for not being verified and for failure to show a prima facie case against Atty. Gatdula. Another motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Boquiren. The Petition: The Court considered the two motions for reconsideration filed by Atty. Boquiren.
Issue(s)
Whether the administrative complaint should be dismissed without prejudice given that the underlying Civil Case No. 111 is on appeal. Whether the complainant's motions for reconsideration are meritorious. Whether the language used by the complainant in his motions for reconsideration warrants disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the motions for reconsideration, finding them devoid of merit. The administrative complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the complainant, Atty. Felixberto N. Boquiren, was ordered to explain why he should not be cited for contempt and/or subjected to disciplinary action.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the administrative complaint should be dismissed without prejudice given that the underlying Civil Case No. 111 is on appeal: The Court reiterated its earlier resolution to dismiss the administrative complaint without prejudice because Civil Case No. 111 was on appeal with the Regional Trial Court. The appeal necessarily encompassed all incidents that occurred from the filing of the complaint up to the Municipal Trial Court's decision. The complainant's appeal brief itself detailed numerous perceived improper conduct, orders, proceedings, misrepresentation, misapprehension of facts, and ignorance of law and rules by the judge, clerk of court, and defendant's counsel, which constituted the bases of the administrative complaint. These issues were deemed purely judicial in nature and adequately addressable by the appeal. The alleged errors committed by the judge were considered at best errors of judgment, remediable through the appellate process. The Court emphasized that in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, a judge's acts in a judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even if erroneous, citing Revita v. Rimando. Furthermore, any finding by the Supreme Court on the administrative complaint would influence the outcome of the appeal, constituting unwarranted judicial interference. On whether the complainant's motions for reconsideration are meritorious: The Court found the motions for reconsideration devoid of merit. The reasoning for dismissing the administrative complaint without prejudice, as stated in the January 26, 1994 Resolution, remained valid. The appeal process was the proper venue for addressing the alleged judicial errors and improprieties. The Court noted that the issues raised in the administrative complaint were substantially the same as those detailed in the complainant's appeal brief before the Regional Trial Court. Therefore, the appellate court was the appropriate forum to resolve these matters. On whether the language used by the complainant in his motions for reconsideration warrants disciplinary action: The Court strongly noted the excessive and intemperate language used by complainant Atty. Boquiren in his motions for reconsideration, describing the Court's Resolutions with terms such as "highly questionable," "based on insufficient or incorrect reasons," "a classic arbitrarily concluded resolution," "a glaring violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics," "pregnant with aptness to mislead, deceptive or delusive quality," "patently erroneous," "a BRAZEN LIE and MOCKERY OF JUSTICE," and attributing "classic carelessness, inefficiency, if not lack of industry" to court staff. The Court found these words to be aimed at seriously undermining its integrity. It reminded Atty. Boquiren of his duty, as a lawyer and officer of the court, to observe and maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers, as mandated by Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
Administrative complaints against judges and court personnel concerning alleged errors of judgment in the disposition of cases, where the matter is still on appeal, should be dismissed without prejudice to the appeal resolving the issues, as such matters are best addressed through the appellate process and judicial remedies, absent fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. Lawyers are also reminded of their duty to maintain respect for courts and judicial officers.