See v. Mislang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Philip See entered into a Deed of Assignment with Ruth D. Bautista, assigning PhP2.6 Million from the proceeds of a medical procurement contract with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Bautista issued postdated checks to See, which were dishonored. See filed a Verified Complaint with Prayer for Preliminary Attachment against Bautista. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the writ, and garnishment notices were served on UCPB and AFP. Procedural History: The AFP filed a Motion to Lift/Quash Notice of Garnishment, arguing the funds were public and not yet due. The RTC denied this. Bautista then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was also denied. Bautista subsequently filed a Motion to Quash, set for hearing. See failed to appear despite notice. The RTC directed See to file a comment within five days. Without receiving a comment, the RTC issued an Order dated May 22, 2013, granting the Motion to Quash, stating the funds were public. On the same day, Bautista withdrew the entire payment from the AFP. See received the order on May 24, 2013, and did not pursue further judicial remedies, instead filing an administrative complaint against the RTC judge. The Petition: Complainant Philip See filed an administrative complaint against Judge Rolando G. Mislang for dishonesty, gross misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law, alleging the judge improperly lifted the attachment without awaiting his comment.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge justifiably lifted the Writ of Preliminary Attachment. Whether respondent judge denied complainant his right to due process by resolving the motion without awaiting complainant's comment or opposition. Whether the alleged error of respondent judge warrants the Court's exercise of disciplinary authority.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Judge Rolando G. Mislang.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent judge justifiably lifted the Writ of Preliminary Attachment: The Court disagreed with the complainant, holding that the respondent judge acted justifiably. The preliminary attachment was prematurely granted because, at the time of its issuance, Bautista had not yet been paid the contract price by the AFP. The Deed of Assignment stipulated that the amount due to complainant could only be drawn upon presentation of documents from the AFP, and payment was contingent upon the final acceptance of goods by the AFP and the submission of a Certificate of Final Acceptance. The Court cited Pacific Products, Inc. v. Ong to emphasize that garnishment of receivables due a private entity while still in the possession of the government is illegal. Furthermore, by initially allowing the garnishment, the respondent judge indirectly adjudicated a monetary claim against the AFP, a power primarily vested in the Commission on Audit (COA) under PD 1445, thus circumventing the law. On the issue of whether respondent judge denied complainant his right to due process: The Court found that the complainant was not denied due process. The RTC set the Motion to Quash for hearing and directed the complainant to file a comment within five days. Despite notice, the complainant failed to appear at the hearing. The Court reiterated the doctrine that there can be no denial of procedural due process if an opportunity to be heard is accorded. The five-day period for comment should be reckoned from the date of the hearing, as notice to counsel is notice to the client. The complainant's counsel was duly notified, and it was their duty to inquire about the case status. The Rules of Court only require that a motion be heard, not necessarily that comments must be filed before resolution. On the issue of whether the alleged error of respondent judge warrants the Court's exercise of disciplinary authority: The Court ruled that an administrative complaint is not a substitute for a judicial remedy. The complainant admitted to not filing a motion for reconsideration or a petition for certiorari, deeming it "utterly useless and highly impractical." The Court clarified that disciplinary proceedings against a judge are not complementary or suppletory to judicial remedies. If a judicial remedy is available, it must be pursued. The Court noted that the respondent judge had already been dismissed from the service in a separate case, but this did not render the administrative case moot as other penalties, like a fine, could still be imposed. However, based on the findings that the judge acted justifiably and due process was observed, the administrative complaint was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
An administrative complaint against a judge is not a substitute for a judicial remedy to review or undo acts performed in the performance of judicial duties. Furthermore, a judge may justifiably lift a writ of preliminary attachment if it was prematurely granted, and a party is not denied due process if afforded an opportunity to be heard, even if they fail to appear despite notice.