A.M. No. MTJ-98-1174 - SANLAKAS NG BARANGAY JULO, SAN ANTONIO, INCORPORATED, REPRESENTED BY ITS OFFICERS MRS. FLERIDA C. SULIT, MRS. TERESITA CASTILLO AND MR. ROGER ULATAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. HON. TIBURCIO V. EMPAYNADO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, MTC, SAN ANTONIO, NUEVA ECIJA.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme

Ruling

Accordingly, Esmundo's charges are without basis and are clearly unfounded. Finally, respondent Judge manifested that while he was the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija, he was designated by the Supreme Court to be the Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija. This resulted in doubling his caseload, but he exerted earnest efforts to prevent delays in the proceedings and in the disposition of the cases pending in the said courts. His diligence in examining all the documents submitted by SANLAKAS in the subject cases led him to conclude that some, if not most, of these were either spurious or questionable documents. Upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, the case was referred to Judge Arturo Bernardo, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 36, for investigation, report and recommendation. [7] In his report, Judge Bernardo recommended that respondent Judge be censured. [8] Thereafter, the case was referred back to the Office of the Court Administrator for further evaluation, report and recommendation. [9] In the meantime, respondent Judge applied for retirement from government service, which was approved by this Court on July 15, 1999. The Financial Management Office and the Court Administrator was directed to set aside or withhold the amount of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) from his retirement pay until the three (3) administrative cases against respondent Judge, this case included, shall have been resolved. [10] After evaluating the report submitted by Judge Bernardo, as well as its own investigation, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that a fine in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) be imposed on the respondent Judge for failing to act on the two cases filed by SANLAKAS. We find good reason to adopt the recommendation of the Court Administrator. The records reveal that the two cases for malicious mischief were filed on April 27, 1996 and seven (7) months later, or on November 20, 1996, when the instant complaint was filed, the two cases had not been set for hearing. We find no malice or fraud on the part of respondent Judge. Malice implies that the act complained of must be the result of an evil intent that excludes a mere voluntary act, deliberated to inflict damage on either party to a case before him. [11] We see no such evil intent in his persistence to check the veracity and authenticity of the documents. Clearly, his ardent pursuit of the truth in these two cases cannot be the basis of the charge for malicious delay in the administration of justice. It is a well-established rule that in the absence of malice, fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even if such acts are erroneous. [12] While we cannot impute malicious intent on the part of respondent Judge in his overzealous effort to expose the irregulariti