Boquiren vs. Del Rosario-Cruz

In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous, and administrative complaints grounded on judicial errors should be dismissed when the underlying case is still pending appeal, to avoid unwarranted judicial interference with the appellate court's disposition.

Atty. Felixberto N. Boquiren served as plaintiff's counsel in Civil Case No. 111, an ejectment and damages suit before the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Zambales, presided over by Judge Emperatriz del Rosario-Cruz, with Melinda D. Gatdula as clerk of court. Atty. Saturnino V. Bactad, the incumbent vice-governor of the province, represented the defendant. The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure governed the underlying ejectment proceedings.

Civil Case No. 111, entitled "Alex Boquiren, et al. vs. Mariano Gutierrez," was a forcible entry and detainer action filed on June 5, 1992 before the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Zambales. Atty. Felixberto N. Boquiren represented the plaintiffs, while Atty. Saturnino V. Bactad, the incumbent vice-governor of the province, represented the defendant. Judge Emperatriz del Rosario-Cruz presided over the case, with Melinda D. Gatdula serving as clerk of court.

On February 26, 1993, Judge Cruz dismissed the ejectment suit for plaintiff's lack of cause of action. Atty. Boquiren seasonably appealed the dismissal to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Iba, Zambales. In his appeal memorandum, complainant devoted at least twenty pages of a twenty-six-page statement detailing perceived improper conduct, orders, misrepresentation, misapprehension of facts, and ignorance of the law and rules of procedure allegedly committed by the judge, the clerk of court, and the defendant's counsel — the same grounds that would later form the bases of the administrative complaint.

On July 5, 1993, while the appeal was pending, Atty. Boquiren filed an administrative complaint before the Supreme Court against Judge Cruz and Atty. Gatdula for misconduct, partiality, serious nonfeasance, culpable dereliction of duty, and ignorance of the law relative to the disposition of Civil Case No. 111. He separately charged Atty. Bactad with false representation and employing a scheme to defeat the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, alleging that Bactad falsely claimed a motion to dismiss is an allowable pleading under said rules.

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint on January 26, 1994 without prejudice to refiling, noting that the underlying civil case was on appeal with the RTC where relief was available. On March 2, 1994, the Court again dismissed the complaint, this time for not having been verified and for failure to show a prima facie case against respondent Atty. Gatdula. Atty. Boquiren filed motions for reconsideration of both resolutions on February 18, 1994 and March 26, 1994, respectively. In these motions, complainant employed intemperate language describing the Court's resolutions as "highly questionable," "a classic arbituarily concluded resolution," "a glaring violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics," "a BRAZEN LIE and MOCKERY OF JUSTICE," and "mirror[ing] the Adjudicating Tribunal's and/or its staff's BRAZEN MOCKERY OF JUSTICE," among other characterizations, prompting the Court to require him to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt.

• Administrative Liability of Judge and Clerk of Court: Petitioner charged Judge Cruz and Atty. Gatdula with misconduct, partiality, serious nonfeasance, culpable dereliction of duty, and ignorance of the law relative to the disposition of Civil Case No. 111.
• False Representation by Defendant's Counsel: Petitioner alleged that Atty. Bactad engaged in false representation and employed a scheme to defeat the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure by claiming that a motion to dismiss is an allowable pleading under said rules.
• Reconsideration of Dismissal: Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Court's January 26, 1994 resolution dismissing the complaint without prejudice, and of the March 2, 1994 resolution dismissing the complaint for lack of verification and failure to show a prima facie case against Atty. Gatdula.

• Propriety of Administrative Complaint: Whether the administrative complaint against the respondents should be reinstated despite the underlying civil case being pending on appeal before the RTC.
• Judicial Immunity from Administrative Liability: Whether alleged errors committed by a judge in the disposition of a case are proper grounds for administrative disciplinary action.
• Contemptuous Language: Whether complainant's intemperate language in his motions for reconsideration warrants a citation for contempt and/or disciplinary action.

• Propriety of Administrative Complaint: No. The dismissal without prejudice was proper because the issues raised in the administrative complaint were purely judicial in nature and could be adequately addressed in the pending appeal, and any ruling on the administrative complaint would constitute unwarranted judicial interference with the RTC's disposition of that appeal.
• Judicial Immunity from Administrative Liability: No. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous; alleged errors of judgment are remediable by appeal.
• Contemptuous Language: The Court ordered complainant to show cause within five days why he should not be cited for contempt and/or subjected to disciplinary action, finding that his language appeared prima facie aimed at seriously undermining the integrity of the Court, in violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Propriety of Administrative Complaint: The administrative complaint, though formally distinct from Civil Case No. 111, could not be taken in isolation from it. The appeal of Civil Case No. 111 before the RTC encompassed all incidents from the initial filing on June 5, 1992 through the MTC decision of February 26, 1993. Complainant himself devoted at least twenty pages of his twenty-six-page appeal statement to detailing the same perceived misconduct, misrepresentation, and ignorance of the law that formed the bases of the administrative complaint. Because these were purely judicial issues that the appeal could adequately address, and because any finding by the Court on the administrative complaint would influence and affect the outcome of the pending appeal, dismissal without prejudice was warranted to avoid unwarranted judicial interference with the RTC's disposition of the appeal.
• Judicial Immunity from Administrative Liability: The alleged errors committed by Judge Cruz relative to the disposition of Civil Case No. 111 were at best errors of judgment, remediable by appeal rather than by administrative complaint. Citing Revita vs. Rimando, the Court reaffirmed the public policy that absent fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, a judge's acts in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even if erroneous. Administrative complaints are not substitutes for judicial remedies when the gravamen is judicial error.
• Contemptuous Language: The Court noted the excessive prose complainant employed in his motions for reconsideration, including characterizations of the Court's resolutions as "a BRAZEN LIE and MOCKERY OF JUSTICE" and "mirror[ing] the Adjudicating Tribunal's and/or its staff's BRAZEN MOCKERY OF JUSTICE." These words appeared prima facie aimed at seriously undermining the integrity of the Court. Complainant had forgotten his duty as a lawyer and officer of the court to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers, as required by Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Judicial Immunity from Administrative Liability — In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. Administrative complaints cannot substitute for appeal where the gravamen is judicial error. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that Judge Cruz's dismissal of the ejectment case, even if erroneous, was a judicial act remediable by appeal, not by administrative discipline.

• Avoidance of Judicial Interference with Pending Appeals — Where an administrative complaint raises the same issues as a pending appeal, dismissal without prejudice is proper to avoid unwarranted judicial interference with the appellate court's disposition. The Court found that any ruling on the administrative complaint would inevitably influence the RTC's resolution of the pending appeal, which could not be allowed.

• Duty of Respect to Courts — Lawyers, as officers of the court, must observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers pursuant to Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Intemperate language criticizing judicial resolutions may constitute contempt or warrant disciplinary action. The Court found complainant's language prima facie aimed at undermining the Court's integrity and required him to show cause.

• "it is a matter of public policy that in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous" — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine of judicial immunity from administrative liability, frequently cited in subsequent administrative cases against judges.

• "any finding that this Court would make relative to the administrative complaint would undoubtedly influence and affect the outcome of Atty. Boquiren's appeal. Needless to say, this would constitute an unwarranted judicial interference and sway the Regional Trial Court's dispensation of the appeal which we cannot allow to happen." — This articulates the rationale for dismissing administrative complaints when the underlying case is pending appeal, to prevent prejudicing the appellate proceedings.

• "Complainant seems to have forgotten his duty, as a lawyer and as an officer of the court, to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers (Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility)." — This underscores the ethical obligation of counsel to maintain decorum in pleadings, grounding the show-cause order for contempt and/or disciplinary action.

• Revita vs. Rimando, 98 SCRA 619 (1980) — Controlling precedent cited for the doctrine that absent fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, a judge's judicial acts are not subject to disciplinary action even if erroneous. The Court relied on this to hold that Judge Cruz's alleged errors were not proper grounds for administrative liability.

• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers. The Court invoked this provision to find that complainant's intemperate language in his motions for reconsideration potentially violated his professional duty and warranted a show-cause order for contempt and/or disciplinary action.

• Revised Rule on Summary Procedure — Governs the underlying ejectment proceedings. Complainant alleged that Atty. Bactad falsely represented that a motion to dismiss is an allowable pleading under these rules, constituting a scheme to defeat their application.

Feliciano, Romero, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concurred.