A.M. No. RTJ-03-1774 - PROV. PROSECUTOR DORENTINO Z. FLORESTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGEELIODORO G. UBIADAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OLONGAPO CITY, BRANCH 72.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly recommended that respondent be FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos. By Resolution of February 26, 2003, [12] this Court noted the OCA Report and required the parties to MANIFEST within twenty (20) days from notice, whether they are submitting the case on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted. By Manifestation dated April 1, 2003, [13] complainant proffered additional charges against respondent and submitted in support thereof, among other things an administrative complaint filed by one Dr. Reino Rosete against respondent and photocopies of orders issued by respondent. Dr. Rosetes complaint, which was addressed to then Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo, is both undated and unsigned, however. In the same Manifestation, complainant submitted the case for decision. On May 9, 2003, the Docket and Clearance Division of this Court received an undated manifestation [14] of respondent stating that he was submitting the case on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed in the case. This Courts Findings I. On the dismissal of Crim. Case No. 212-97 On innumerable occasions this Court has impressed upon judges that, as mandated by the Code of Judicial Conduct, they owe it to the public and the legal profession to know the very law they are supposed to apply to a given controversy. [15] They are called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules, to be conversant with the basic law, and to maintain the desired professional competence. [16] The propriety of the dismissal, on motion of the accused, of Crim. Case No. 212-97 on jurisdictional grounds is, however, a matter for judicial adjudication and the proper recourse of a party aggrieved by the decision of a judge is to appeal to the proper court, not file an administrative complaint. [17] For, as a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. [18] Only in cases where the error is gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith may administrative sanctions be imposed. [19] There is no showing that this was the case here. With respect to the non-resolution of the prosecutions Motion for Reconsideration of the order of dismissal of Crim. Case No. 212-97 no resolution of which has been issued, complainant, in his Reply to the Comment of respondent, refutes respondents explanation in this wise: When the said motion was filed in Court on July 11, 1997, the Chinese fishermen were not yet released from detention. It was during the pendency of the motion that the Chinese fishermen were allowed to leave by the Chief of Police of Subic, Zambales despite our representation that they should not be released from jail as another case for illegal fishing was still pending investigation. . . . The representatives from