Not every error or mistake committed by a judge or justice renders him administratively liable. It must be shown that he committed it in bad faith or with deliberate intent, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. This is the ruling in this administrative case against two justices of the CA (JE and VR).
The administrative case arose from a feud among family members, the parents (Fred and Sol), and their three daughters against a son (TG). Fred and Sol were the organizers of a company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of home appliances (NICI) and its holding company (LCD) which owns 50% of NICI (20,160 shares of stocks) held in trust for their three daughters.
When Fred and Sol realized that TG had been dissipating the assets of LCD they caused the registration of the 20,160 stocks of LCD in NICI in the name of their three daughters thus enabling the latter to assume active management of NICI. This triggered a series of suit involving the family.
LCD filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila asking restoration of management of NICI to TG. When the RTC granted the petition and issued a writ restoring management to TG, NICI, the couple and their daughters (FS family) filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. The CA Tenth Division however denied their petition.
So NICI and FS family filed a new Petition for Certiorari in the CA Eight Division where JE and VR sit, praying for the nullification of the same RTC decision and asking for the restoration of the status quo ante. This time the CA Eight Division granted their prayer and issued a TRO, and subsequently a writ of injunction enjoining the implementation of the RTC decision.
Pursuant to the break-open order also issued by said division, FS family entered the NICI premises. This prompted SMT one of the occupants, to sue NICI and FS family for forcible entry before the QC Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Then TG also filed on behalf of another occupant, 3D Industries, a complaint for replevin before the RTC of Pasig which issued the writ of replevin. Thus NICI and the FS family filed a supplemental petition for certiorari with the CA Eight division, to include the supervening events and to implead as additional parties, 3D, the RTC Judge and the sheriff alleging that TG allowed himself to be used by 3D in an attempt to circumvent the TRO and injunction issued by the CA. On January 14, 2005 the CA issued a resolution admitting the supplemental petition.
Later on NICI and FS family filed a second supplemental petition with urgent motion for issuance of expanded writ of injunction impleading SMT which they said was being used by TG as dummy to institute various cases to gain control of NICI properties by engaging in forum shopping. On April 26, 2005, the CA 8th division which has segued into 7th division but still including JE and VR admitted the second supplemental petition.
By virtue of these two resolutions dated January 24 and April 26, 2005, SMT and 3D filed an administrative complaint against Justices JE and VR claiming that they acted with undue haste in precipitately admitting the two supplemental petition on the basis of bare unsubstantiated allegations, thus giving NICI and FS family unwarranted benefits in violation o Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law. Were they correct?
No. The issuance of said resolutions favoring NICI and the FS family does not necessarily render Justices JE and VR guilty of violation said Section 3 (e) of the Anti Graft Law absent proven acts of manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence because good faith and regularity in the performance of official duties of public officers are presumed.
Manifest partiality is a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or the other. Bad faith connotes not only bad judgment or negligence but also a dishonest purpose, a conscious wrong doing or a breach of duty amounting to fraud. Gross negligence is the want of even a slight care, willfully acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act with conscious indifference to consequences.
Impleading any party at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are just, is allowed. So JE and VR’s participation in the resolutions admitting the supplemental petitions does not render them administratively liable. They may have based their resolutions on mere allegations that a SMT and 3D are mere alter egos of the individual stockholder, TG which under established jurisprudence is “insufficient”. But this error or mistake does not render them liable unless it is shown that they have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do injustice which is not the case here (3D and Smartnet vs. Roxas and Enriquez, A.M. CA-10-50-J, October 5, 2010).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net