G.R. No. MTJ-00-1252 December 17, 2002
NELSON RODRIGUEZ and RICARDO CAMACHO, complainants, vs. JUDGE RODOLFO S. GATDULA, respondent.

FACTS

On November 25, 1994, Mariveles Pawnshop Corporation, represented by Natividad Candido, filed a complaint for forcible entry against Ricardo Camacho and Marilou Hernandez in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Balanga, Bataan, docketed as Civil Case No. 1701. The defendants, in their answer and a subsequent motion to dismiss, contended that the MTC had no jurisdiction because the case involved an intra-corporate dispute falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Respondent Judge Rodolfo S. Gatdula denied the motion to set the motion to dismiss for hearing. On April 16, 1997, he rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff corporation, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and pay rentals. Upon plaintiff’s motion, and due to defendants’ failure to post a supersedeas bond, respondent judge issued an order granting execution of the decision on June 5, 1997. The defendants seasonably filed a notice of appeal. On June 9, 1997, they also filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) assailing the order of execution. On the same date, Ricardo Camacho and Nelson Rodriguez filed the instant administrative complaint against respondent judge for gross ignorance of the law, gross negligence, and/or abuse of authority, alleging his failure to resolve the motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, his error in requiring a supersedeas bond, and his award of possession solely to Natividad Candido.

ISSUE

Whether the instant administrative complaint against the judge is permissible while the complainants’ judicial remedies (appeal and petition for certiorari) assailing the judge’s decision and order are still pending.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court DISMISSED the administrative case against Judge Rodolfo S. Gatdula. The Court reiterated the doctrine that an administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the available judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by an erroneous order or judgment. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available and has not yet been resolved with finality. Until a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order is manifestly erroneous, there is no basis to conclude the judge’s administrative liability. In this case, the complainants filed the administrative complaint while their appeal and petition for certiorari were still pending with the RTC. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in a related case (G.R. No. 13675, January 15, 2002), subsequently upheld the validity of respondent judge’s decision and order of execution in the forcible entry case, the very acts assailed in the administrative complaint. Thus, respondent judge was not found administratively liable.