AC 600; (October 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-41405 October 13, 1975
SOFRONIO G. BONJOC, complainant, vs. JUDGE MARIANO C. TUPAS, Bansalan, Davao del Sur, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Sofronio G. Bonjoc filed an administrative complaint against Judge Mariano C. Tupas, alleging two acts of misconduct. First, he charged the judge with grave abuse of discretion for dismissing Criminal Case No. 1571 for malicious mischief, which Bonjoc had filed against Antonio Palma and Pedro Tomas. Second, he accused the judge of manifest partiality in Civil Case No. 140, an ejectment suit filed by Simplicio Belotindos against Bonjoc. The complainant asserted that the judge ruled for the plaintiff despite Bonjoc’s alleged 34-year possession and a prior dismissal of a similar action by the plaintiff’s predecessor. He also cited the denial of his motion to lift a preliminary mandatory injunction, notwithstanding his offer to post a bond double the plaintiff’s.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Mariano C. Tupas should be held administratively liable for grave abuse of discretion and manifest partiality based on the allegations in the complaint.
RULING
The Court exonerated Judge Tupas. The case was referred for investigation to Judge E.L. Peralta, whose report, based on evidence from both parties, recommended dismissal. Regarding the criminal case, the investigation found the acquittal fully justified because evidence established that the dam allegedly destroyed by the accused never existed. The Court reviewed the evidence and concurred with this factual finding, negating any abuse of discretion.
Concerning the civil case, the investigator found no evidence of partiality or bad faith by the respondent judge. The Court emphasized that the complainant’s appeal from the challenged decision was still pending. It held that it would be improper for an administrative proceeding to preemptively determine the correctness or legality of a judicial decision under appeal, as such matters are for the appellate court. The report further suggested the complaint might stem from the complainant’s persecution complex, indications of which were in the record. Consequently, with the charges unsubstantiated, the Court approved the recommendation for exoneration.