ARTHUR F. MORALES vs. LEONCIA REAL-DIMAGIBA, JHOSEP Y. LOPEZ, AND RAMON R. GARCIA (PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS)

ARTHUR F. MORALES I, Complainant, v. LEONCIA REAL-DIMAGIBA, JHOSEP Y. LOPEZ, AND RAMON R. GARCIA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, FIFTEENTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, 

FACTS:

This case stemmed from the complaint filed by Arthur F. Morales I (complainant) charging Associate Justices Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, Jhosep Y. Lopez, and Ramon R. Garcia, all of the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), with gross ignorance of the law, procedure and jurisprudence, rendering them unfit to perform their judicial functions.

The facts are, A fire razed the warehouse of Kentex Marketing Corporation (Kentex), incident caused the death of not less than seventy-four (74) employees of Kentex.

Investigation conducted after the incident revealed that Valenzuela City Mayor Rexlon T. Gatchalian (Mayor Gatchalian) issued a mayor's permit to Kentex without requiring the latter to submit a Fire Safety Inspection Certificate (FSIC), in violation of the Revised Fire Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 9514).

Criminal and Administrative complaints were thereafter filed against Mayor Gatchalian before the Office of the Ombudsman.

In a Joint Resolution dated 11 February 2016, the OMB found Mayor Gatchalian, among others, guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and were meted the penalty of dismissal from the service with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of benefits and privileges and perpetual disqualification to hold public office.

Mayor Gatchalian assailed the OMB ruling before the CA through a Petition for Certiorari with Urgent Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 144428 entitled "Rexlon T. Gatchalian v. Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales, et al." and raffled to the Fifteenth Division. of the CA.

The Fifteenth Division of the CA issued a resolutio that let a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) be issued.

Fearing that a Writ of Preliminary Injunction would follow, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint against respondent associate justices of the Fifteenth Division of the CA.

Complainant maintained that the Joint Resolution of the OMB involving the dismissal from the service of Mayor Gatchalian cannot be enjoined by a TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction of the CA. He averred that the TRO issued by the respondent associate justices on 4 March 2016 was a direct contravention of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Facura v. CA⁴ and Villaseñor, et al. Complainant implores this Court to dismiss the respondent associate justices from the judiciary for grave ignorance of the law and jurisprudence.

ISSUE:
Whether Associate Justice guilty of ignorance of law and jurisprudence thus be dismissed?

RULING:
It is clear that the assailed resolutions were issued by respondent justices in the proper exercise of their judicial functions. As such, these are not subject to administrative disciplinary action. Other than complainant's bare allegations, there were no evidence presented to show any wrong-doings or bad faith on the part of respondent justices. We have settled the rule that a judge may not be administratively sanctioned from mere errors of judgment in the absence of showing of any bad faith, fraud, malice, gross ignorance, corrupt purpose, or a deliberate intent to do an injustice on his or her part.¹² Judicial officers cannot be subjected to administrative disciplinary actions for their performance of duty in good faith.

In order to be held administratively liable it must be shown that the respondent associate justices have been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption in ignoring, contradicting or failing to apply settled law and jurisprudence.¹⁷ No such ill motivation was shown, nay alleged, to have caused the issuance of the TRO.