G.R. No. RTJ-98-1418. September 25, 1998.
EMMANUEL D. SANTOS, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE L. ORLINO (Retired), Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, General Santos City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emmanuel D. Santos was the accused in Criminal Case No. 10961 for estafa before Branch 23 of the RTC of General Santos City, presided by respondent Judge Jose L. Orlino. The prosecution presented retired Judge Andres O. Lorenzo, Sr. as a witness on March 29, 1995. His testimony concerned a conference at his law office in June 1994 attended by the accused, his brother, and officers of the offended party, Berringer Marketing, Inc. Judge Lorenzo testified that the purpose was to draft an affidavit for the accused regarding missing beer stocks, but the accused never returned to execute it. After the prosecution rested and its exhibits were admitted, the accused, through his father Atty. Jose S. Santos, filed a motion on November 9, 1995, to strike this testimony for allegedly violating the attorney-client privilege under Section 24(b), Rule 130, claiming the conference created an attorney-client relationship. Judge Orlino, in an Order dated November 13, 1995, gave the prosecution 10 days to oppose and the accused 10 days from receipt to reply. The prosecution filed its opposition on December 6, 1995, arguing no attorney-client relationship was formed, the objection was waived, and the testimony was thoroughly cross-examined. Without awaiting the accused’s reply, Judge Orlino issued an Order dated December 7, 1995, denying the motion to strike, adopting the prosecution’s grounds. The accused filed a Reply/Rejoinder and Motion for Reconsideration on December 21, 1995, lamenting the “hasty action.” Subsequently, the accused filed a motion for Judge Orlino’s inhibition on February 15, 1996, alleging bias. Judge Orlino granted the inhibition on March 15, 1996, and the case was re-raffled to Branch 35. Complainant filed this administrative complaint on May 17, 1996, alleging the denial was hasty and indicative of partiality, and also claiming an “unholy relationship” between the offended party and his former counsel. Respondent Judge, in his comment, defended his order as correct, stating the testimony had no probative value and caused no prejudice, and condemned the complaint as harassment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose L. Orlino is administratively liable for his Order dated December 7, 1995, denying the motion to strike the testimony of Judge Lorenzo without awaiting the accused’s reply period, and for alleged partiality.

RULING

No, respondent Judge is not administratively liable. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Court found the complaint without sufficient basis. While the denial of the motion without awaiting the reply period may have seemed precipitate, no real prejudice was caused to the complainant. His counsel was able to present a motion for reconsideration arguing the matter insistently. Furthermore, judicial remedies, such as a motion for reconsideration before the new branch or an appeal, were available and are the appropriate recourse, not an administrative complaint. The Court reiterated the doctrine that judges are not administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision. Liability attaches only when the error is gross, patent, deliberate, malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith. The imputed error in this case was not gross, and the record lacked any persuasive showing of deliberate or malicious intent to cause prejudice. Therefore, the administrative proceeding was without basis. The Court also directed the release of all retirement benefits due to respondent Judge.