A.M. No. 672-CJ. June 30, 1976. MAXIMA ROSALES, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS of City Court, Branch IV, Pasay City, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Maxima Rosales filed an administrative complaint for misconduct against respondent Judge Francisco R. Llamas, alleging favoritism and a premature issuance of a writ of execution in an ejectment case entitled Adelaida Vda. de Reyes v. Maxima Rosales. The complainant, the defendant in that case, contended that the judge would not have acted as he did had he been impartial and attentive. The respondent judge rendered his decision on July 31, 1973, ordering Rosales to vacate the premises and pay arrears and attorney’s fees. The case was submitted for decision on July 30, 1973, after Rosales appeared without counsel and without evidence, following several postponements and a reinstatement after an initial dismissal.
On August 15, 1973, the plaintiff filed a motion for immediate execution. Respondent Judge granted this motion and issued the writ on August 18, 1973. Rosales filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on August 20, which was denied on August 24. She then filed a notice of appeal on August 27, which the court approved, leading to the transmittal of the records to the Court of First Instance. The writ of execution had been issued before the perfection of this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Francisco R. Llamas is administratively liable for misconduct based on the alleged premature issuance of a writ of execution in the ejectment case.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The Court emphasized that administrative proceedings against judges are penal in character, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as established in In re Horrilleno. The record revealed insufficient evidence to meet this stringent standard. The Court acknowledged that a losing party may harbor suspicions, but such sentiments alone cannot sustain an administrative charge.
Even assuming arguendo that the judge erred in interpreting Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court (which governs immediate execution in ejectment cases pending appeal), such legal error, without more, does not constitute administrative misconduct. The Court, citing Dizon v. De Borja, held that holding a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling would constitute harassment and make the judicial office untenable. The act complained of—issuing the writ before the appeal was perfected—was a judicial act. In the absence of clear evidence of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corrupt motive, which was not presented, the judge cannot be held administratively liable. The proper remedy for any perceived legal error was the judicial appeal already undertaken by the complainant, not an administrative sanction.