A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201-CA-J; February 19, 2013
Ethelwoldo E. Fernandez, Antonio A. Henson and Angel S. Ong, Complainants, vs. Court of Appeals Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr., Isaias P. Dicdican and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., Respondents.

FACTS

Complainants, elected directors of Nationwide Development Corporation (NADECOR), were part of a board elected at an August 15, 2011 stockholders’ meeting. Other stockholders, the Ricaforts, filed a case to annul this meeting, alleging defective notice. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the meeting null and void. Four separate petitions for certiorari were subsequently filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the RTC’s order, each with applications for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. These petitions were consolidated.
The consolidated petitions were pending before the CA’s Special 14th Division. The ponente was Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion. While Justice Lantion was on wellness leave, Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. was designated as acting senior member of the Division. During this period, Justice Bato, with the concurrence of the other regular members of the Division, Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., issued a June 13, 2012 Resolution granting the petitioners’ applications for a writ of preliminary injunction. Complainants charged the respondent Justices with grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and manifest partiality, alleging that Justice Bato “usurped” the ponencia and that the Division acted on unverified motions and granted injunctive relief without a hearing.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Justices are administratively liable for the acts complained of in relation to the issuance of the June 13, 2012 Resolution.

RULING

No, the respondent Justices are not administratively liable. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Court explained that an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy to assail a judicial order or resolution, the correctness of which should be raised through appropriate judicial remedies like a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review. The acts complained of pertain to the respondents’ performance of their official duties in resolving pending incidents. For such acts to incur administrative liability, there must be a clear showing of bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. Mere errors in judgment, absent any showing of such ill motive, are not subject to disciplinary action.
The Court found no evidence of bad faith or malice. Justice Bato’s designation as acting senior member during Justice Lantion’s leave was proper, and his action on the pending incidents was within his authority. The grant of the preliminary injunction was a discretionary judicial act. The alleged procedural lapses, such as acting on unverified motions or granting relief without a hearing, do not automatically constitute gross ignorance of the law or misconduct, especially when the parties had already extensively argued the injunctive relief in their pleadings. The respondents’ actions were performed in the regular course of their judicial functions. Therefore, the complaint constituted an improper attempt to use an administrative proceeding to review the correctness of a judicial issuance.