SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 326-CJ. July 31, 1978.]
PEDRO VILLA, Complainant, v. JUDGE FRANCISCO LLAMAS of the City Court of Pasay City, Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
In a letter addressed to the Press Secretary, which was referred to the Supreme Court for action, complainant contested the wisdom of the respondent judge’s decision in a civil case for having believed the testimony of the plaintiff, an alleged operator of houses of ill-repute, and disbelieved that of the complainant and his co-defendants.
The Supreme Court held that to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable. Besides, in this case, the complainant appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance but later withdrew the appeal in consideration of a certain amount paid by the plaintiff therein, for expenses incurred in removing complainant’s house from the land of the plaintiff, which withdrawal indicated complainant’s conformity with the questioned decision of respondent judge.
The Supreme Court held that to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable. Besides, in this case, the complainant appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance but later withdrew the appeal in consideration of a certain amount paid by the plaintiff therein, for expenses incurred in removing complainant’s house from the land of the plaintiff, which withdrawal indicated complainant’s conformity with the questioned decision of respondent judge.
SYLLABUS
1. ACTIONS; DISMISSAL, CASE OF. — An adminstrative complaint questioning the wisdom of a city judge’s decision regarding appreciation and credibility of the witness’ testimony and seeking the review of said decision, will be dismissed where it appears that the complainant had appealed from said judgment and later withdrew the same upon payment to him by the plaintiff therein of a certain sum for expenses incurred in removing complainant’s house from plaintiff’s land. The withdrawal of the appeal indicated complainant’s conformity with the questioned decision.
2. JUDGES; GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR ERRONEOUS RULING, RATIONALE. — The circumstance that a judge believed the testimony of a witness, an alleged operator and maintainer of houses of ill-repute and disbelieved the testimony of the defendants, and is asking for the review of the said decision. Said circumstance, however, is not an indubitable ground for penalizing a judge administratively. To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable.
2. JUDGES; GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR ERRONEOUS RULING, RATIONALE. — The circumstance that a judge believed the testimony of a witness, an alleged operator and maintainer of houses of ill-repute and disbelieved the testimony of the defendants, and is asking for the review of the said decision. Said circumstance, however, is not an indubitable ground for penalizing a judge administratively. To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable.
R E S O L U T I O N
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
Letter of Dr. Pedro Villa, dated October 2, 1972, addressed to Mr. Francisco "Kit" Tatad, Press Secretary, Malacañang Palace, later referred to this Court for action, asking him to "please ask President Marcos to designate Dr. Gaudencio Garcia, Chairman of the Presidential Investigation Committee to investigate Civil Case No. 9995 and Dr. Garcia will find out how incompetent, abusive, and uselessness of Judge Llamas. This judge believed the false, false stories of the plaintiff, Victorino Esguerra, operator and maintainer of bawdy houses (prostitutes) in Calle Cabrera, Pasay City and ’vale wala’ the honest and truthful testimonies of the defendants — Pedro Reyes, Cornelio Santos, Agosto Villanueva and myself. So please, have Civil Case No. 9995 investigated by Dr. Gaudencio Garcia. I hope and pray that for the good of our Country, necessary action should be taken as soon as possible in accordance with first decree of President Marcos — against Judge Francisco Llamas of Pasay City Courts, Branch IV."cralaw virtua1aw library
Obviously, the complainant is contesting the wisdom of the respondent’s decision in Civil Case No. 9995 of the City Court of Pasay City for having believed the testimony of the plaintiff, an alleged operator and maintainer of houses of ill-repute and disbelieved the testimony of the defendants, and is asking for the review of the said decision. Said circumstance, however, is not an indubitable ground for penalizing a judge administratively. As this Court had said "To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable." 1
Besides, the record shows that the complainant, Dr. Pedro Villa, had interposed an appeal to the Court of First Instance of Rizal which he subsequently withdrew in consideration of the amount of P250 to him paid by the plaintiff therein, for the expenses incurred in removing his residential house from the land of the plaintiff. The withdrawal of his appeal indicated his conformity with the questioned decision of the respondent judge.chanrobles law library
WHEREFORE, the complaint is dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Santos, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., took no part.
Obviously, the complainant is contesting the wisdom of the respondent’s decision in Civil Case No. 9995 of the City Court of Pasay City for having believed the testimony of the plaintiff, an alleged operator and maintainer of houses of ill-repute and disbelieved the testimony of the defendants, and is asking for the review of the said decision. Said circumstance, however, is not an indubitable ground for penalizing a judge administratively. As this Court had said "To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable." 1
Besides, the record shows that the complainant, Dr. Pedro Villa, had interposed an appeal to the Court of First Instance of Rizal which he subsequently withdrew in consideration of the amount of P250 to him paid by the plaintiff therein, for the expenses incurred in removing his residential house from the land of the plaintiff. The withdrawal of his appeal indicated his conformity with the questioned decision of the respondent judge.chanrobles law library
WHEREFORE, the complaint is dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Santos, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. Dizon v. De Borja, Adm. Case No. 163-J, January 28, 1971, 37 SCRA 46.
