G.R. No. A.M. No. 227-RTJ, A.M. No. R-561-RTJ, A.M. No. 5249-RET October 13, 1986
GREGORIO R. ABAD and CRISANTO P. CRUZ, complainants, vs. JUDGE ILDEFONSO M. BLEZA, respondent.

FACTS

Two administrative complaints were filed against Judge Ildefonso Bleza of the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite. The first, by Lt. Col. Gregorio Abad, stemmed from the judge’s decision in a frustrated homicide case. Abad was shot by Francisco Sabater Jr., allegedly a bodyguard of Potenciano Ponce, following a dispute at a cockfight. The prosecution’s narrative was that Ponce provoked and threatened Abad, leading to the shooting. The defense presented a contrary version claiming self-defense. Judge Bleza acquitted Ponce for insufficiency of evidence and convicted Sabater of frustrated homicide but appreciated mitigating circumstances, including incomplete self-defense. Abad charged the judge with malice, ignorance of the law, and grave abuse of discretion for this ruling.
The second complaint was filed by Crisanto P. Cruz, who was adjudged liable for damages in a civil case. Cruz alleged that Judge Bleza knowingly rendered a wrong judgment by disregarding his evidence. Concurrently, Judge Bleza had applied for disability retirement due to poor health, specifically hypertensive and congestive heart failure. His entitlement to retirement benefits was contingent on the resolution of these administrative cases.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Judge Ildefonso M. Bleza should be held administratively liable based on the complaints, which would affect his application for disability retirement benefits.

RULING

The Court dismissed both administrative complaints and approved Judge Bleza’s application for disability retirement. Regarding the first case, the investigating Justice found no basis for administrative liability. The acquittal of Ponce was based on the judge’s assessment of conflicting testimonies and a finding of insufficient evidence. The Court emphasized that a judge’s error in appreciating facts or evidence, absent proof of bad faith, dishonesty, or corrupt motive, does not constitute an administrative offense. Judges cannot be held liable for erroneous judgments rendered in good faith. The conviction of Sabater with mitigating circumstances was within the judge’s discretionary power to evaluate the evidence presented.
Concerning the second complaint, the Court noted that the civil decision was pending appeal. Administrative liability for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment requires a final appellate court determination that the errors were committed deliberately and in bad faith. While the case was sub judice, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevailed. Therefore, the complaint was premature and without merit. With the administrative charges dismissed, there was no legal impediment to granting the retirement application. The Court approved the retirement of Judge Bleza on the ground of permanent total disability as recommended by the Court Administrator and the medical findings.