A.M. No. CA-03-35; July 24, 2003
Atty. Rosalio De La Rosa, complainant, vs. Court of Appeals Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Perlita Tria-Tirona, Oswaldo Agcaoili, Mariano Del Castillo, MeTC Judge Eugenio Mendinueto, Attys. Gilbert Reyes, Deogracias Fellone and Antonio Hernandez, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant, the private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 59354 for Estafa, filed an administrative complaint alleging deliberate delay in the prosecution. The case stemmed from a Secretary of Justice directive to file an Information after a City Prosecutor initially dismissed it. Upon filing in MeTC-Pasig, Branch 72 (Judge Mendinueto), two accused filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause, while three others filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 67388). The trial court dismissed the case against the two accused after a hearing found no probable cause. For the remaining three, Judge Mendinueto suspended proceedings pending the CA’s resolution.
The CA’s Special Sixteenth Division, composed of Justices Sabio, Tirona, and Del Castillo, issued a 60-day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) halting trial court proceedings. Complainant filed a motion to quash the TRO instead of a comment, which was opposed by the accused’s lawyers (Attys. Reyes, Fellone, and Hernandez). The TRO lapsed without a preliminary injunction. Complainant then filed a motion to commence proceedings in the trial court, which Judge Mendinueto denied to await the CA’s final resolution to avoid conflicting orders. The CA eventually dismissed the petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for alleged deliberate delay in the criminal proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Regarding the Justices, the issuance of the TRO was a judicial prerogative exercised in the course of their official duties. Absent proof of bad faith, malice, or corrupt motive, they cannot be held administratively liable for judicial actions, even if arguably erroneous. The CA resolved the petition within a reasonable time considering caseloads and judicial assignments, including the Zero Backlog Project.
Concerning Judge Mendinueto, his decision to await the appellate court’s final resolution after the TRO expired was a judicious exercise of discretion to prevent the potential chaos of conflicting rulings between his court and the CA. This does not constitute delay but rather judicial courtesy and procedural orderliness.
As for the respondent lawyers, filing the Petition for Review was a legitimate legal remedy to protect their clients’ interests. An error in the choice of remedy, without proof of deliberate bad faith or a scheme to frustrate justice, does not incur administrative liability. However, the Court admonished complainant for his use of intemperate and sarcastic language against fellow lawyers, which violates the mandate of civility and candor in professional dealings.