A.M. No. MTJ-23-019 – RICHARD CARINGAL, complainant, vs. JUDGE CORNELIO A. SY, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, respondent.
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.
Rule Synopsis
An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he [or she] appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client. Moreover, disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory to, nor a substitute for, judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary.
Facts
Richard Caringal (Caringal) filed a complaint against Judge Cornelio Sy (Judge Sy), accusing him of gross misconduct, incompetence, and ignorance of the law. The accusations stemmed from Judge Sy’s handling of Civil Case No. 1671, which involved Caringal’s loan to Marcelo Claveria and Delia Culla. These two individuals borrowed PHP 500,000 from Caringal. When they failed to repay, Caringal brought the matter to the office of the barangay where the parties signed an agreement called “PAGHAHARAP” where Claveria and Culla agreed to pay their PHP500,000.00 loan. The latter failed to comply so Caringal filed a case in the municipal trial court to enforce the settlement. Judge Sy handled the case.
When Judge Sy’s initial dismissal of the complaint was reversed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on appeal, he issued a writ of execution against Claveria and Culla and set the case for a pre-execution conference. During the conference, Caringal failed to attend despite notice. Meanwhile, his lawyer, Atty. Luminate, accepted PHP 500,000 offered by Claveria and Culla, which was the principal loan amount but did not cover the interest. Caringal protested, claiming that he did not authorize his lawyer to settle the case without considering the interest due. He also accused Judge Sy of improperly closing the case after the payment of PHP 500,000. He alleged that the judge’s actions were influenced by corruption, which Judge Sy denied.
The Judicial Integrity Board-Office of the Executive Director (JIB-OED) recommended dismissal of the complaint against Judge Sy. While the JIB found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of PHP 200,000.
The Supreme Court resolved to re-docket the instant administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter against Judge Sy.
Issues
Was guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, or gross incompetence?
Ruling and Discussion
No. Judge Sy is not guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, or gross incompetence.
(a) There was no reduction of the judgment amount during the execution stage.
As borne by the PAGHAHARAP and the writ of execution, the judgment amount is PHP500,000.00 which was exactly the same amount accepted by Caringal’s lawyer in full satisfaction thereof. Moreover, the claim of Caringal’s lawyer that he was ordered by Judge Sy to accept the amount is unsubstantiated. There is also no provision in the PAGHAHARAP requiring them to pay any further amount, even supposed interest on the loan, and Caringal failed to explain why he claims that the payment of PHP500,000.00 during the execution stage is deficient.
(b) An attorney is presumed authorized to represent his client.
Sec. 21 of the Rules of Court ordains that an attorney is “presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he [or she] appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client.”
Judge Sy cannot be faulted in recognizing the authority of Atty. Luminate to accept the full judgment amount, and thereafter, in declaring the case as closed and terminated.
Caringal’s protest, and his lawyer’s withdrawal of appearance, do not merit the recall of the order deeming the case closed and terminated. The same were not even motions which the court itself was required to resolve. Judge Sy therefore cannot be expected to recall his aforesaid order on the basis alone of these submissions, more so in view of the long delay already entailed in the execution of the judgment.
(c) Judge Sy’s initiative in calling a pre-execution conference is commendable.
Judge Sy explained that he called the pre-execution conference to help the parties come with with an immediate solution. This given Office of the Clerk of Court’s failure to receive or act upon the writ of execution.
(d) Caringal could have filed a motion for reconsideration or a certiorari case against the Judge Sy’s order, instead of filing an administrative complaint against him.
Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory to, nor a substitute for, judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. For, obviously, if subsequent developments prove the judge’s challenged act to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all. Besides, to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly unbearable. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice cart be infallible in his judgment. It is only where the error is tainted with bad faith, fraud, malice, or dishonesty that administrative sanctions may be imposed against the erring judge.
The charges against Judge Sy for gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and gross incompetence are all judicial in nature. The administrative complaint filed against Judge Sy disrupted the performance of the his judicial duties, unnecessarily clogged the Supreme Court’s docket, no less, needlessly drained the resources of the Court in resolving it, but also sowed the seed of distrust of the public against Judge Sy as a member of the judiciary.
dispositive
Complaint dismissed.