AM 2426; (August, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 2426-CFI August 31, 1981
ALEJANDRO BALATBAT, complainant, vs. JUDGE JESUS DE VEGA, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Alejandro Balatbat filed an administrative complaint dated September 30, 1980, against respondent Judge Jesus de Vega. Balatbat alleged that he was the victim of an unjust decision, which he claimed was “knowingly” rendered by the respondent judge. The complaint further accused the judge of ignorance of the law.
The Deputy Court Administrator, Hon. Romeo D. Mendoza, referred the complaint to the respondent judge for comment on November 10, 1980. Judge de Vega complied by filing his comment in a 2nd Indorsement dated December 12, 1980. Subsequently, the complainant filed a reply to the judge’s comment on February 16, 1981, thereby completing the submission of pleadings for the Court’s evaluation.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative complaint against Judge Jesus de Vega for allegedly rendering an unjust decision knowingly and for ignorance of the law has sufficient merit to warrant disciplinary action.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Court meticulously reviewed the allegations in the complaint and the reply, together with their annexes, as well as the comment filed by the respondent judge. After careful study and deliberation on the report submitted by the Deputy Court Administrator, which was concurred in by Court Administrator Lorenzo Relova, the Court was fully convinced that the charges were unsubstantiated.
The legal logic is clear: an administrative complaint against a judge based on alleged errors in the exercise of adjudicative functions must be substantiated by convincing proof of bad faith, malice, or gross ignorance. Mere allegations of an unjust decision, without concrete evidence demonstrating that the judgment was rendered with a conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice or with such gross ignorance as would amount to a disregard of basic legal rules, are insufficient. The Court found no such evidence in this case. The proper remedy for any perceived error in a judicial decision is an appeal, not an administrative charge. Therefore, finding no basis for the accusations of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or ignorance of the law, the Court dismissed the complaint.