A.M. No. RTJ-12-2334 - ERNESTO HEBRON, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MATIAS M. GARCIA II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, BACOOR CITY, CAVITE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly be fined in the amount of P5,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. [12] Before the Court could have acted upon the OCAs Report, Hebron filed with the OCA a Letter dated October 2, 2012, withdrawing his complaint against Judge Garcia. He claimed to have filed the administrative complaint only upon the prodding of his former lawyer, Atty. Frolin H. Remoquillo, and that he signed it without even fully understanding the contents thereof. Furthermore, he reasoned that he was already ailing at 69 years of age, and he already yearned to rectify the mistakes that he had committed, including his loss of trust in the justice system. The Court re-docketed the administrative complaint as A.M. No. RTJ-12-2334. This Courts Ruling At the outset, we emphasize that Hebrons withdrawal of his complaint against Judge Garcia does not necessarily warrant its dismissal. In Bayaca v. Ramos , [13] we explained: We have repeatedly ruled in a number of cases that mere desistance or recantation by the complainant does not necessarily result in the dismissal of an administrative complaint against any member of the bench. The withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to determine the veracity of the charges made and to discipline, such as the results of its investigation may warrant, an erring respondent . Administrative actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may, for reasons of his own, condone what may be detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter relating to its disciplinary power. The Courts interest in the affairs of the judiciary is of paramount concern. x x x. [14] (Citations omitted and emphasis ours) Given this doctrine, the Court has resolved to allow the administrative case to proceed, especially after taking due consideration of the nature of the offense which, per the evaluation of the OCA, had been committed by Judge Garcia. The Court fully agrees with the OCAs report that Judge Garcia cannot be held administratively liable for the alleged wrongful rulings that he made in Civil Case No. BCV-2005-94 and BSC No. 2009-02. Time and again, we have ruled that the errors attributed to judges pertaining to the exercise of their adjudicative functions should be assailed in judicial proceedings instead of in an administrative case. [15] As the Court held in Dadula v. Judge Ginete : [16] Even assuming arguendo that respondent Judge made an erroneous interpretation of the law, the matter is judicial in nature. Well-entrenched is the rule that a partys remedy, if prejudiced by the orders of a judge given in the course of a trial, is the proper reviewing court, and not with the OCA by means of an administrative complaint. As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject t