Cortes v Sandiganbayan
AM No. SB-04-11-J, 13 Feb 2004
Callejo, Sr. J.:
FACTS:
The instant administrative case arose when Leonides Cortes filed a verified Letter-Complaint dated 28 July 2003 charging Justices Minita Chico-Nazario, Rodolfo Palattao* and Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada of Sandiganbayan (5th ) with violation of Supreme Court Resolution No. 2-9-2002, gross and culpable violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and gross and culpable violation of Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees over a case filed before the Ombudsman but was submitted to the Sandiganbayan.
The complainant charged Mun. Treasurer of Samal, Bataas Dolores Reyes and prov treasurer Pastor P. Vichauco for taking advantage of their official function by cause the sale of his property at public auction which was made without authority to do so and was not notified for the said sale. He claimed that he paid his taxes in 1996 to Ramon Castro, the clerk of mun. treasurer, who was forced to resign after he testified before the Ombudsman to cover the anomaly.
Cortes’ argument on Sandiganbayan’s error:
Terminated the case without the defense having conducted a cross-examination on him but admitted that clarificatory questions were asked and that he was asked to testify on the civil aspect of the case where he claimed that the conduct of the public auction incurred him damages amounting to 45k;
That Cortes has slept on his rights for failing to redeem the property without 1.5 years. Cortes avers that there was no need for him to redeem for the sale was not registered; hence, null and void.
Sandiganbayan denied the Demurrer to Evidence because Cortes’ counsel, Atty. Lazaro, negotiated for its reversal.
Sandiganbayan Justices’ consolidated comments:
Denied the charges for said charges were anchored on the reconsideration of Resolution dated 16 Nov 2000 where the Demurer to Evidence was originally denied. In plea for reconsideration, Cortes alleged that it was not for the Sandiganbayan Justices to show their innocence but for the prosecution to prove their guilt. In the Resolution dated 25 June 2001, no evidence was presented to prove the 2 essential elements of the crime charged;
SC Resolution No. 02-9-2000 does not define or punish any offense. The charge of gross and culpable violation of RA 3019 deserves no consideration for it is false and unsubstantiated;
The complainant indiscriminately charged all persons who were involved in his case directly or indirectly;
The questioned resolution of the court was based on established facts and law, and that the reversal of its earlier resolution is sanctioned by the Rules of Court;
Cortes did not set out distinctly the alleged serious misconduct or the provisions of the Code of Ethics which they violated, and such allegation in violation of RA 6713 is unfounded and baseless;
On 22 Oct 2003, Cortes filed an Urgent Motion to Declare Respondents in Default for noncompliance with the directive of the Office of Court Admin to submit comments within 10 days from receipt.
ISSUE:
W/N the Justices of the Sandiganbayan committed the crimes charged.
HELD:
No. The Court ruled that the alleged violation of RA 3019 and RA 6713 is without factual basis. The rule is that in administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaint.
As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action; cannot be subjected to liability civil, criminal or administrative for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Except errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice.
Article 204 has no application to the members of a collegiate court who reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation. Hence, charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that such a collective decision is unjust cannot prosper. Remedy is not to file an admin complaint for judicial recourse is still available, but to elevate it to higher court.
The Court ruled that the legality of the auction sale without notice should have been questioned before proper court and complainant also failed to redeem the property within the 1 year period. It is an established rule that an administrative, civil or criminal action against a judge cannot be a substitute for appeal and is proscribed by law and logic
The failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render a judge administratively liable.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a respondent judge should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.
Respondents cannot be held liable for violation of Supreme Court Resolution No. 2-9-2002, as the same does not define nor punish an offense, but merely defines the extent of the consequence of an administrative complaint if filed against Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, Judges of the Regular and Special Courts and court officials who are lawyers.
