A.M. NO. MTJ-05-1604 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 04-1580-MTJ) - MARITES O. TAM, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JOCELYN G. REGENCIA

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that the instant administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be fined in the amount of P11,000.00. [3] In a Resolution dated August 24, 2005, the Court resolved to re-docket the instant administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. [4] In her Manifestation dated September 23, 2005, respondent manifested her desire to file additional pleadings. She prayed that she be granted reasonable time within which to file said pleadings. [5] On the other hand, complainant manifested her willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. [6] In its Resolution of November 21, 2005, the Court granted respondent a period of 10 days from notice within which to submit additional pleadings and noted complainant's manifestation stating her willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. [7] In her Supplemental Comments, respondent reiterates her claim that the instant administrative case is clearly unfounded, malicious, and intended for purposes of harassment. She asserts that she was not moved by malice, bad faith, corrupt practice, or improper consideration when she rendered the questioned resolution in Criminal Case No. 4003-A. She contends that to merit disciplinary action, the error or mistake of a judge must be gross and patent, malicious, deliberate, or in bad faith. Respondent also argues that private complainant is not without remedy because her resolution in the subject criminal case is still subject to review by the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu and, in case the same is affirmed, the aggrieved party still has the option to appeal the ruling to the Regional State Prosecutor and, thereafter, to the Secretary of Justice. Citing various authorities, respondent maintains that as a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action; that he cannot be subjected to criminal, civil, or administrative liability for any of his official acts no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. [8] In her Reply to respondent's Supplemental Comments, complainant averred that respondent downgraded the charge from serious illegal detention to less serious physical injuries to favor the accused who is the nephew of the stenographer assigned to her sala ; a case for attempted murder was finally filed in court against the accused by virtue of a Resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor dated April 22, 2004. [9] Complainant prayed that respondent be dismissed from the service. [10] In its report, the OCA submitted its evaluation and recommendation, to wit: Complainant's assertion that respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in not finding probable cause for serious illegal detention against the accused deserves scant considerati