A.C. No. 9912, September 21, 2016
DATU REMIGIO M. DUQUE JR., Complainant, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., COMMISSIONERS LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, AND CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM; ATTYS. MA. JOSEFINA E. DELA CRUZ, ESMERALDA A. AMORA-LADRA, MA. JUANA S. VALLEZA, SHEMIDAH G. CADIZ, AND FERNANDO F. COT-OM; AND PROSECUTOR NOEL S. ADION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is a disbarment complaint filed by Datu Remigio M. Duque, Jr., (Duque) against former Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Elias R. Yusoph, and Christian Robert S. Lim; Attys. Ma. Josefina E. Dela Cruz, Esmeralda A. Amora-Ladra, Ma. Juana S. Valleza, Shemidah G. Cadiz, and Fernando F. Cot-om; and Prosecutor Noel S. Action for Conduct Unbecoming a Lawyer, Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct.
The case stemmed from a Complaint dated May 26, 2011 filed by Duque against respondents Sheila D. Mabutol, Cleotilde L. Balite, Camilo M. Labayne, Reynaldo P. Erese, Jr., Ruth Joy V. Gabor, Luzviminda V. Galanga, Esmeraldo Galanga, Jr., Gavino V. Rufino, Jr., Zenaida T. Rufino, Melanie M. Tagudin-Cordova, Alona D. Rocacorba, Alma P. Bunag, Joey G. Lomot and Nena G. Bactas, docketed as I.S. No. 111-18-INV-11-D-0390, for alleged violation of election laws, particularly Sections 223, 224, Article 19, Section 261 (y) (17), (z) (21), and Article 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
Duque, who ran for Punong Barangay of Lomboy, La Paz, Tarlac but lost, filed a petition for recount contesting the results in a number of precincts where respondents were chairman and members of the Board or Election Tellers (BETs), respectively. Duque alleged that there were several irregularities in the canvassing of the ballots, i.e., the discovery of alleged crumpled official ballots during the recount proceedings and unsigned election returns. Respondents, however, vehemently denied said allegations.
On June 13, 2011, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Noel S. Adion recommended that the complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses, and to prosecute the same. Duque moved for reconsideration but was denied m a Resolution1 dated September 21, 2011.
The records of the case were forwarded to the COMELEC.
On March 14, 2013, in its disputed Decision,2 as recommended by the Law Department of the COMELEC, the COMELEC En Banc3 dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. It found no violation of any of the pertinent election laws. It likewise pointed out that Duque failed to substantiate the complaint by clear and convincing evidence.
Aggrieved, complainant filed the instant disbarment complaint against Commissioners Brillantes, et al.
On July 1, 2013, the Court resolved to require respondents to Comment on the complaint against them.4chanrobleslaw
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, in its Comment5 dated October 24, 2013, pointed out that respondents, being COMELEC Commissioners may only be removed from office solely by impeachment. As impeachable officers who are at the same time members of the Bar, respondent Commissioners must be removed from office by impeachment before they may be held to answer administratively for their supposed erroneous resolutions and actions.
Respondents likewise maintained that there exists no valid ground for their disbarment. While complainant insists that respondents conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights by dismissing his complaint despite "voluminous evidence," complainant, however, failed to establish said allegation of conspiracy by positive and conclusive evidence. Other than his bare allegations of conspiracy, complainant failed to show how respondents acted in concert to deprive him of his constitutional rights or even specify the particular acts performed by respondents in the supposed conspiracy.
In his separate Comment6 dated September 10, 2013, respondent Prosecutor Adion averred that the complaint against him has no legal and factual basis.
For his part, respondent Commissioner Lim, through his counsel, echoed the other Commissioners' contention that as an impeachable officer, he must first be removed from office through the constitutional route of impeachment before he may be held administratively liable for his participation in the disputed Resolution. He added that Duque miserably failed to allege, much less submit a clear, convincing and satisfactory proof of any act of Lim which may be construed as a ground for disbarment. Respondent further pointed out that the COMELEC En Banc, in dismissing the complaint of Duque, properly applied paragraph (m), Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which states that "it is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed;" hence, the members of the BETs enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties unless a clear and convincing evidence is shown to the contrary.
It should be emphasized, however, that as a matter of policy, 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. He 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. In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction. The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. Thus, not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge.If at all, complainant felt aggrieved and wanted to properly proceed against the COMELEC, the remedy of an aggrieved party against a judgment or final order or resolution of the COMELEC is a petition under Rue 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court brought before this Court,15 and not a disbarment proceeding. There being no evidence whatsoever tending to prove unfitness of respondents to continue in the practice of law and remain officers of the court, and there being no showing that respondents were motivated by bad faith or ill motive in rendering the assailed decision, the charges of conduct unbecoming a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct against them, thus, must be dismissed.
Endnotes:
* Designated Additional Member in lieu or Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated September 19, 2016.
1Rollo, p. 28.
2Id. at 173-178.
3 COMELEC En Banc composed of Sixto S. Brillantes as Chairman, with Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Elias R. Yusoph, Christian Robert S. Lim, and Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca, concurring.
4Rollo, p. 60.
5Id. at 202-215.
6Id. at 181-188.
7Remegio M. Duque, Jr. v. Sheila D. Mabutol, et al.
8 A.C. No. 4509, December 5, 1995, 250 SCRA 11.
9 243 Phil. 167, 170 (1988).
10 241 Phil. 816, 828 (1988).
11Punzalan v. COMELEC, 352 Phil. 538, 552-553 (1998).
12Bedol v. Commission on Elections, 621 Phil. 498, 510 (2009).
13Salvador v. Judge Limsiaco, Jr., 519 Phil. 683, 687 (2006).
14 458 Phil. 11, 23-24 (2003). (Citations omitted)
15Macabago v. COMELEC, 440 Phil. 683, 691-692 (2002).
16Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390, 413 (2013).
17Anacta v. Atty. Resurreccion, 692 Phil. 488, 497 (2012).