Yin v. Perello
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Cua Shuk Yin filed an administrative complaint against Judge Norma C. Perello for undue delay in issuing a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 98-031. The complainant alleged that the case was decided only on September 25, 2000, after she filed a previous administrative case against the respondent judge. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision on December 12, 2001. The Supreme Court dismissed the previous administrative case but advised the respondent judge to resolve pending motions with dispatch. Procedural History: On November 27, 2003, Judge Perello issued an order for the execution of the Court of Appeals decision, granting the defendants ninety (90) days to pay their loan, otherwise, the mortgaged properties would be foreclosed. The complainant coordinated with the sheriff for foreclosure, but the sheriff could not proceed without a writ of execution from Judge Perello. Despite persistent follow-ups and an ex parte motion filed on January 15, 2004, Judge Perello had not issued the writ of execution, causing further delay. The Petition: The complainant filed the instant administrative complaint alleging undue delay and defiance of a Supreme Court resolution. In her Comment, Judge Perello invoked Section 2, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that the issues raised were judicial in nature and not subject to administrative complaint, but recommended that the respondent judge be admonished for using intemperate and insulting language in her Comment.
Issue(s)
Did Judge Norma C. Perello commit undue delay in issuing the writ of execution? Did Judge Norma C. Perello exhibit conduct unbecoming a judge due to the intemperate language used in her Comment?
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit, finding that the issues raised were judicial in nature and there was no showing of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption on the part of the respondent judge. However, the Court admonished Judge Perello for conduct unbecoming of a judge and sternly warned her against repetition of the same.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the allegations raised by the complainant regarding undue delay in issuing the writ of execution pertained to issues judicial in nature. It affirmed the well-established policy that, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, and corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even if such acts are erroneous, as long as the judge acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. The Court found no showing that Judge Perello acted in bad faith in the proceedings, particularly concerning her interpretation and application of Section 2, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, which mandates a 90-day period for payment in foreclosure judgments. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant did not comply with the Office of the Court Administrator's (OCA) directive to signify her interest in pursuing the case by adhering to the requirements of Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, thereby failing to substantiate her administrative complaint. On Issue 2: The Court agreed with the OCA's finding that Judge Perello should be admonished for the improper language used in her Comment. The Court explicitly stated that calling the complainant a "greedy and usurer Chinese woman," tagging her lawyer as "lazy and negligent," and branding her own clerk of court as "equally lazy and incompetent" is not language befitting the esteemed position of a magistrate of the law. Citing Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons 2 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, the Court reiterated that a judge's personal behavior must at all times be beyond reproach, as they are the visible personification of law and justice. Judges are expected to behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, requiring temperance, patience, and courtesy both in conduct and in language. Thus, the use of such intemperate and insulting language constituted conduct unbecoming a judge, warranting an admonition and a stern warning.
Main Doctrine
While judicial errors in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption are not subject to administrative sanctions, a judge may be admonished for conduct unbecoming of a judge, particularly for the use of intemperate and insulting language.