Doran v. Luczon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emelita A. Doran, a court stenographer, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Salvador B. Campos, alleging grave misconduct. The charges included scandal-mongering, falsifying attendance records by certifying a court aide's presence despite his absence to work on the judge's rice land, utilizing the aide as an overseer for the judge's property, manipulating logbooks to favor certain employees, disregarding preliminary examinations in a case, accepting bribes, and habitual absenteeism. Procedural History: The complaint was initially filed with the Office of the Court Administrator and subsequently referred to Executive Judge Jimmy Henry F. Luczon, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, for investigation. After the complainant presented her evidence, Judge Luczon allowed Judge Campos to file a demurrer to evidence, a decision upheld despite the complainant's opposition and motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court later reassigned the investigation to Judge Vilma T. Pauig due to the filing of the instant petition. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The Petition: Petitioner Emelita A. Doran filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Resolutions of Executive Judge Luczon that permitted the filing of a demurrer to evidence. She argued that Judge Luczon committed grave abuse of discretion, contending that his role was merely investigative and recommendatory, not judicial or quasi-judicial, and thus his rulings on procedural matters like demurrers were not subject to certiorari. The Supreme Court found the petition moot and academic due to the subsequent dismissal of the administrative complaint but emphasized the inappropriateness of the certiorari recourse against an investigating judge's procedural rulings.
Issue(s)
Whether Investigating Judge Luczon committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing respondent to file a demurrer to evidence. Whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies against an investigating judge whose function is investigative and recommendatory. Whether Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court prohibits the filing of a demurrer to evidence in administrative investigative proceedings such as disciplinary investigations of judges. Whether the petition is moot and academic in view of the dismissal of the administrative complaint by the Office of the Court Administrator.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner. The Court held that the investigating judge’s role is investigative and recommendatory, not judicial or quasi-judicial, and that an investigating judge who allows the filing of a motion to dismiss does not commit irregularity provided he does not determine its merits but merely notes it and considers it in his report and recommendation. Because the administrative complaint was subsequently dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, the petition is moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Investigating Judge Luczon committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing respondent to file a demurrer to evidence: The Court reasoned that Judge Luczon was designated solely to investigate the complaint and submit a report and recommendation and therefore was not vested with judicial or quasi-judicial power to finally adjudicate the controversy. The nature of the act to be performed, not the office of the actor, determines whether the function is judicial or quasi-judicial; here the act was investigatory and recommendatory. The Court explained that an investigating judge may note, allow or receive motions such as a demurrer to evidence for purposes of inclusion in his report and recommendation, but he must refrain from making a final determination on the merits of such motions. Applying Office of the Court Administrator v. Matas, the Court reiterated that the investigating judge's authority is limited and not co-extensive with the powers of the appointing court; if the investigating judge goes beyond noting and considering the motion and instead denies or grants it on the merits, that would exceed his delegated authority. Accordingly, allowing the filing of a demurrer, by itself, did not constitute grave abuse of discretion where no final adjudication was made by the investigator. On Whether certiorari under Rule 65 lies against an investigating judge: The Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 is available only against tribunals, boards or officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions who acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the investigating judge’s function was to investigate and recommend; he was not clothed with power to render final judgment or adjudicate rights by applying the law to the facts. Because the investigating judge did not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power in the conduct of the inquiry but merely performed investigatory and recommendatory work, certiorari was not the appropriate remedy to assail his procedural rulings. The Court thus dismissed the petition for lack of a proper basis under Rule 65. On Whether Section 5, Rule 139-B bars a demurrer to evidence in administrative investigations: The Court noted petitioner’s reliance on Section 5, Rule 139-B which governs disciplinary proceedings against attorneys, but it clarified that the provision applies to disbarment cases and other disciplinary actions against lawyers and does not categorically prohibit procedural motions like demurrers in all administrative inquiries. The Court emphasized the difference in the nature and scope of proceedings and reiterated that the appropriate check on an investigating judge’s handling of motions is the investigator’s report and the Court’s own supervisory review, not an independent certiorari petition against the investigator. The conclusion was that Rule 139-B did not operate to make the allowance of a demurrer per se improper in the investigatory context, given the limited role of the investigator. On Mootness: The Court found the petition moot because the underlying administrative complaint was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, eliminating any actual controversy and rendering any ruling on the challenged investigatory orders academic. The Court therefore declined to decide the merits of petitioner’s claim and dismissed the petition.
Main Doctrine
An investigating judge designated to investigate an administrative complaint has only investigative and recommendatory powers and does not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions; consequently, his acts in that limited capacity (such as allowing the filing of a demurrer to evidence) are not proper subjects of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 unless he makes a determination on the merits.