Andamo v. Larida
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Emmanuel R. Andamo, counsel for Cavite Rural Banking Corporation (CRBC), filed a Letter-Complaint against Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr., Clerk of Court Stanlee D. Calma, and Legal Researcher Diana G. Ruiz of RTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, for alleged ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from the alleged delay in the resolution of four (4) Petitions for issuance of Certificates of Sale under Act 3135 and four (4) Ex-parte Joint Petitions for Writs of Possession. Specifically, complainant alleged that Judge Larida, Jr. erred in recognizing the appearance of Atty. Ireneo Anarna as counsel for oppositors and in not requiring guaranty bonds, and in issuing an Order denying a motion for early resolution, stating that CRBC had yet to present evidence. Complainant also accused Atty. Calma and LR Ruiz of inaction on the pending cases. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) summarized the complaint and defenses. Due to conflicting factual issues, the OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative case and referred to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation. The Supreme Court resolved to re-docket the complaint and refer it to a CA Justice. CA Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier conducted the investigation. Judge Larida, Jr. filed his Comment, denying the allegations and asserting prudence in his actions. The parties submitted affidavits and documentary evidence. Justice Lazaro-Javier recommended the exoneration of all respondents. The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Emmanuel R. Andamo against Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr., Clerk of Court Stanlee D. Calma, and Legal Researcher Diana G. Ruiz for gross ignorance of the law.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr. committed gross ignorance of the law in issuing orders related to the petitions for writs of possession and in denying the motion for early resolution. Whether Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr. committed gross ignorance of the law in failing to require oppositors to post guaranty bonds. Whether Atty. Stanlee D. Calma and LR Diana G. Ruiz were remiss in their duties regarding the pending cases.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr., Clerk of Court Stanlee D. Calma, and Legal Researcher Diana G. Ruiz for utter lack of merit. Complainant Atty. Emmanuel R. Andamo was ordered to show cause why he should not be disciplined for filing a frivolous and baseless complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged gross ignorance of the law by Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr. in issuing orders and denying the motion for early resolution: The Court held that complainant was mistaken in asserting that it was Judge Larida Jr.’s ministerial duty under Act 3135 to issue the writs of possession without requiring the presentation of evidence. The Court clarified that a writ of possession may be issued either within the redemption period upon filing of a bond, or after the lapse of the redemption period without need of a bond, once ownership has been consolidated and a new TCT issued. Judge Larida Jr. denied the motion for early resolution precisely because CRBC had yet to present evidence to establish its entitlement to the writs, which was a proper exercise of his judicial duty to review cases and ensure due process. The Court reiterated that a judge can be held liable for gross ignorance of the law only if the error is so gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith, and must be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption. The reasons cited by the complainant did not constitute gross ignorance but reflected adherence to judicial duty. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that administrative cases against judges are not substitutes for available judicial remedies, and complainant should have sought relief from higher courts. On the alleged failure to require oppositors to post guaranty bonds: The Court found that complainant’s invocation of Section 47 of Republic Act No. 8791 was misplaced. The Court clarified that this provision pertains to the restraint of foreclosure proceedings which requires the posting of a bond by one seeking it, and does not apply to the present case where the subject properties had already been foreclosed and sold at public auction. Therefore, Judge Larida, Jr. could not be accused of gross ignorance of the law for not imposing these bonds in the cases mentioned, as the cited provision was not applicable. On the alleged inaction of Atty. Stanlee Calma and LR Diana G. Ruiz: The Court found that the records showed that as early as March 17, 2004, then Assisting Judge Reuben dela Cruz had already denied CRBC’s petitions for extra-judicial foreclosure in an Order for failure to comply with the requirements of RA 3135. This Order had attained finality. The Court stated that it was beyond the duties of Atty. Calma and LR Ruiz to put these denied and finalized cases back into the court calendar without any cogent reason. The Court further noted that complainant had plain, speedy, and adequate remedies available, such as filing a motion for reconsideration or a petition for certiorari from the denial order, but failed to do so. The Court concluded that what complainant failed to do as a judicial remedy, he could not revive through an administrative complaint against these court employees, especially since the complaint was filed more than four years after the denial order.
Main Doctrine
A judge may be held liable for gross ignorance of the law only if an error committed is so gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith, and must be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption. The filing of an administrative case against a judge is not a substitute for available judicial remedies.