G.R. No. A.M. No. CA-02-33 July 31, 2002
Tan Tiac Chiong, complainant, vs. Hon. Rodrigo V. Cosico, Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Tan Tiac Chiong filed a sworn letter-complaint charging respondent Court of Appeals Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with Grave Abuse of Discretion and Conduct Prejudicial to the Service. The complaint arose from CA-G.R. CR No. 13844, “People of the Philippines v. Jesusa T. Dela Cruz,” a criminal case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 where complainant was the private complainant. The Regional Trial Court of Manila convicted the accused and awarded complainant over P1.6 million. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, with respondent as ponente, affirmed the conviction in toto on October 13, 1998. An Entry of Judgment was issued, making the decision final and executory as of December 2, 1998, and the records were remanded for execution. A Notice of Sale on Execution was posted.
In February 2000, complainant learned that the accused had filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) did not file any responsive pleading. On January 24, 2000, respondent issued a Resolution reversing his earlier ponencia, effectively acquitting the accused. Complainant alleged connivance between respondent, the accused’s counsel, and the OSG, noting that the counsel filed a 27-page Motion for Reconsideration on the same day he allegedly received the October 13, 1998 Decision.
In his defense, respondent explained that the accused had filed a “Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and to Restrain Execution of Judgment” on March 16, 1999, on the ground that neither she nor her counsel had received a copy of the decision. Verification showed a copy sent to counsel’s former address was returned. The motion was granted on April 19, 1999, a new copy was sent to counsel’s new address, and a Motion for Reconsideration was filed, attaching evidence of overpayment. The OSG was directed to comment but failed to do so despite extensions, leading to the resolution of the motion without the appellee’s comment. Complainant’s subsequent Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court were denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico is administratively liable for Grave Abuse of Discretion and Conduct Prejudicial to the Service for recalling the Entry of Judgment and subsequently reversing his own decision, thereby acquitting the accused.

RULING

No. The complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Court held that misconduct requires unlawful conduct prejudicial to the rights of parties or the right determination of a cause, motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose. For administrative liability to attach, the assailed act must not only be erroneous but must be established to have been moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other like motive. A judge may not be administratively charged for mere errors of judgment absent a showing of bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose.
The records revealed that the copy of the October 13, 1998 decision sent to the accused’s counsel’s former address was returned with the notation “Moved Out.” The appellate court thus recalled the Entry of Judgment and sent a new copy to the counsel’s correct address. While the right to appeal is statutory and generally requires compliance with rules, under exceptional circumstances, delay may be excused on grounds of substantial justice. Technicalities should be avoided when they frustrate substantial justice. The recall of entries of judgment, though rare, is not a novelty and can be justified in the interest of justice, especially in criminal cases where life, liberty, or property is at stake.
Respondent’s actions hewed to the principle that litigations should be decided on their merits. There was no showing of any wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose on his part. Therefore, he cannot be held administratively liable.