Complainant charged respondent judge with having acted with abuse of authority and having perpetrated miscarriage of justice when he rendered a supposedly unjust and baseless decision in an agrarian case. The assailed decision had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court thereafter had denied a petition for review of the same.

The Supreme Court held, that the correctness of a decision which is already res judicata or has become the law of the case may not be passed upon in an administrative case; and, that before a judge can be disciplined for having rendered knowingly an unjust decision, it must be shown that he acted maliciously or with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice which complainant in this case failed to do.

Case dismissed.

1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA; CORRECTNESS OF DECISION WHICH HAS BECOME RES JUDICATA CANNOT BE PASSED UPON IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE. — An administrative complaint which charges a judge with having acted with abuse of authority and having perpetrated a miscarriage of justice when he rendered a supposedly unjust and baseless decision in an agrarian case cannot be entertained where what complainant wants in the administrative complaint is to pass upon the correctness of respondent’s decision which has already become res judicata or has become the law of the case.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE; KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT; CONSCIOUS AND DELIBERATE INTENT TO DO AN INJUSTICE MUST BE SHOWN. — Before a judge can be disciplined for having rendered knowingly an unjust decision, it must be shown that he acted maliciously and corruptly or with conscious deliberate intent to do an injustice (In re Climaco, Adm. Case No. I34-J, Jan. PHILIPPINE REPORTS Denore v. Judge Castaño, etc. 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 107, 119). Or, as stated by Justice Malcolm, the judge should have "acted partially or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily or oppressively" (In re impeachment of Horrileno, 45 Phil. 212, 215). There being no such showing in the instant complaint, the case should be dismissed.

R E S O L U T I O N

Ernesto Denore in his verified complaint in the Tagalog vernacular dated May 25, 1978 charged Judge Amado B. Castaño with having acted with abuse of authority and having perpetrated a miscarriage of justice when he rendered a supposedly unjust and baseless decision in CAR Cases Nos. 75 and 81 of the Court of Agrarian Relations of Lanao del Norte.

Judge Castaño in that decision ordered Denore to pay the spouses Ernesto Mendoza and Elena Celecio damages consisting of the sums of P27,000 as "unearned shares", P9,291 for the house and improvements, P2,000 for labor and cultivation, P5,000 as moral damages, P200 as exemplary damages and P5,000 as attorney’s fees (pp. 43-44, Rollo of L-46597-8, Denore v. Court of Appeals).chanrobles law library : red

That decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its judgment of November 2, 1976 in Mendoza v. Denore and Denore v. Mendoza, CA-G.R. Nos. SP-04281-82.

This Court in its resolution of August 19, 1977 denied the petition for the review of that decision (Denore v. Court of Appeals, supra).

Denore’s urgent petition filed on March 20, 1978 "upang isaysay, linawin at isaad ang buong kaganapan sa harap ng Poong Maykapal — at umabot ng katarungan sa Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Republika ng Pilipinas" was not entertained by this Court. Also not entertained was Denore’s "Kalatas" dated August 5, 1978 to correct an alleged miscarriage of justice.

Denore had to pay more than sixty thousand pesos to redeem his land from the purchaser at the auction sale (pp. 256-7, SC Rollo).

Judge Castaño did not deal specifically with the allegations in the administrative complaint because of his unfamiliarity with the Tagalog dialect.

We cannot entertain Denore’s administrative complaint because he wants us in this administrative case to pass upon the correctness of respondent’s decision which is already res judicata or has become the law of the case.

Although Denore is not reconciled to the correctness of that decision and although, if his grievances are to be believed, he is allegedly the victim of an outrageous injustice, he cannot seek redress in this administrative case.

Before we can discipline the respondent for having rendered knowingly an unjust decision, it must be shown that he acted maliciously and corruptly or with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice (In re Climaco, Adm. Case No. 134-J, Jan. 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 107, 119).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Or as stated by Justice Malcolm, the judge should have "acted partially, or maliciously, or corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively." (In re Impeachment of Horrilleno, 43 Phil. 212, 215). There is no such showing in the complaint.

WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed and considered closed.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Fernandez and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., took no part.