Dadula v. Ginete
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Leonardo P. Dadula filed a letter-complaint against Judge Manuel V. Ginete, Clerk of Court Dioscoro V. Conag, and Process Server Rolly Almoradie, charging them with bias, partiality, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Dadula alleged that five graft cases he filed against Hilda Revil and relatives were not included in the court calendar on November 12, 1997, despite their appearance with counsel. He suspected this was due to the presence of the accused. Separately, Atty. Arturo Revil, one of the accused, filed a perjury case against Dadula. Dadula claimed Judge Ginete issued a warrant of arrest without proper examination and later inserted a transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) to correct the error. Dadula sought the transfer of venue of the graft cases, assignment of a state prosecutor, disqualification of Judge Ginete, and administrative sanctions against Atty. Arturo Revil. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially reported on the requests, referring some to other bodies. The letter regarding the non-inclusion of cases was referred to Executive Judge Ricardo M. Merdegia, who directed Clerk of Court Conag to comment. Conag admitted a mistake in calendaring due to the process server inadvertently deleting the cases, but denied conspiracy. Judge Merdegia, after inquiry, recommended that the letter of Atty. Mahinay be expunged for being untruthful, finding Atty. Mahinay was not present when cases were called. The OCA later required respondents to comment. Judge Merdegia's report was disputed by Dadula and Atty. Mahinay. The case was referred to the OCA for evaluation, which recommended re-docketing and investigation by Executive Judge Maximino R. Ables for respondents Ginete and Conag, and dismissal against Almoradie due to retirement. Judge Ables recommended dismissal for lack of merit, finding no infraction by Conag and unsubstantiated charges against Judge Ginete. The OCA recommended dismissal for lack of merit, noting the parties' disinterest and the dismissal of the criminal cases due to affidavits of desistance. The Supreme Court reiterated that complainant's desistance does not automatically dismiss administrative cases but relied on available records. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought disciplinary action against the respondents for alleged bias, partiality, and procedural errors in handling cases.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Judge Ginete and Clerk of Court Conag committed bias, partiality, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; specifically addressing the issuance of the warrant of arrest in the perjury case. Whether the non-inclusion of the graft cases in the court calendar was a deliberate act of conspiracy or an inadvertent error.
Ruling
The administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged bias and partiality of Judge Ginete and Clerk of Court Conag regarding the warrant of arrest: The Court found no merit in the complainant's charges against Judge Ginete. The Rules of Criminal Procedure require personal examination of the complainant and witnesses under oath, which Judge Ginete conducted on Atty. Revil, and the TSN was verified to be attached to the case records. The insinuation that the TSN was inserted later was unsubstantiated. Even if there was an erroneous interpretation of the law, such matters are judicial in nature and the remedy lies with the proper reviewing court, not through an administrative complaint, absent fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. Judicial acts are not subject to disciplinary action unless clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice. The claim that the perjury case should have been referred to the Provincial Prosecutor was also deemed a judicial matter, especially since the complainant had availed of his remedies by filing a motion to quash and a petition for certiorari, both of which were dismissed. Judge Ginete had also issued a warrant of arrest against Atty. Revil in a counter-charge filed by the complainant, which belied the allegation of conspiracy and collusion. On the alleged procedural errors and conspiracy by Clerk of Court Conag regarding the non-inclusion of graft cases: The Court found that the non-inclusion of Criminal Cases Nos. 18747-18751 in the court calendar of November 12, 1997, was due to an inadvertent deletion by the process server. Respondent Conag admitted the mistake but denied deliberately refusing to correct it. The affidavits of court personnel and the confirmation from the Presiding Judge indicated that Atty. Mahinay arrived late and was not in the courtroom when the cases were called. Therefore, the complainant failed to adduce evidence showing that Conag deliberately excluded the cases. The complainant's evidence did not show Atty. Mahinay directly requesting Conag to include the cases, but rather he called the attention of stenographers and the court interpreter. Mere suspicion of partiality is insufficient to hold a respondent administratively liable. The criminal cases and the perjury case filed by Atty. Revil against the complainant were eventually dismissed based on affidavits of desistance from the parties, rendering the administrative case moot and academic in light of the parties' expressed disinterest and reconciliation.
Main Doctrine
Mere suspicion of partiality is insufficient to hold a judge administratively liable. Acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action absent fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, even if erroneous. The proper remedy for prejudicial judicial orders is appeal to the appropriate reviewing court.